UC-NRLF 


OPEN  SHOP 

ENCYCLOPEDIA 

FOR 

DEBATERS     \ 


A  REFERENCE  BOOK  FOR  USE  OF  TEACHERS, 
STUDENTS  AND  PUBLIC  SPEAKERS 


PUBLISHED  BY 

NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  MANUFACTURERS 
ii 


1921 


GIFJ 


. 

Table  of  Contents 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  I — Definitions  and  Introduction 5 

j  CHAPTER  II— Labor    Attitude    of    the    National    Association    of 

Manufacturers   17 

CHAPTER  III— Structure  and  Finances  of  Labor  Unions 23 

CHAPTER  IV — Trade  Union  Development  in  Brief 29 

^  CHAPTER  V — Do  Open  Shop  Employers  Hire  Unionists? 36 

Will  Open  Shop  Success  Destroy  Unions? 
Can  Unions  Be  Made  Constructive? 

^CHAPTER  VI — Collective  Bargaining  49 

j  CHAPTER  VII — Irresponsibility  of  Unions  70 

J  CHAPTER  VIII— Outside    Interference 81 

CHAPTER  IX — Union  Apprenticeship   Rules 84 

CHAPTER  X— Output   Restriction    93 

CHAPTER  XI — Open  Shop  Efficiency  and  Production  Comparison,  119 

•J  CHAPTER  XII — Strikes — General    132 

CHAPTER  XIII — Strikes — Sympathetic  and  Jurisdictional 138 

CHAPTER  XIV — Industrial   Warfare    149 

CHAPTER  XV— Unlawful  Acts  Condoned  by  Unions 161 

^/CHAPTER  XVI — Monopoly  Aspects  of  Closed  Shop  Unionism...  165 

X-prA~pTER  XVII— Competition  and  the   Closed   Shop 181 

How  the  Closed  Shop  Raises  Prices 

\_CffApTER  XVIII — Community  Benefits  of  the  Open  Shop 188 

CHAPTER  XIX— The  Rights  of  Independent  Labor 198 

CHAPTER  XX — Some  Ethical  Aspects  of  the  Open  Shop 206 

CHAPTER  XXI— Views  of  Prominent  Americans 214 

CHAPTER  XXII — Legal  Aspects — Public  Regulation 219 

CHAPTER  XXIII— Typical   Debaters'   Arguments. 233 


461918 


DEFINITIONS  AND  INTRODUCTION 


CHAPTER  I. 
Definitions  and  Introduction 

This  Encyclopedia  is  designed  to  meet  the  needs  of  debaters 
seeking  information  concerning  the  open  shop.  But  it  should  also 
be  of  value  to  teachers  and  students  of  economics,  especially  in  the 
field  of  labor  relations.  Investigators  studying  such  topics  as 
strikes,  union  apprenticeship,  etc.,  will  likewise  find  much  useful 
material. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Open  Shop  question  is 
simply  one  phase  of  the  great  industrial  problem.  There  are 
other  important  phases  of  that  problem  which  must  be  solved, 
but  perhaps  none  of  them  concerns  more  directly  the  relations 
that  shall  exist  between  employers  and  workers,  between  fellow 
workers,  and  between  industry  and  the  public.  The  public  is 
more  and  more  realizing  that  it  is  vitally  concerned  in  these 
problems.  There  is  scarcely  an  industrial  dispute  which  does  not 
adversely  affect  thousands,  in  some  cases  millions,  of  people  who 
are  not  immediate  parties  to  the  controversy.  The  public  itself 
is  realizing  this ;  the  ever-increasing  complexity  of  the  industrial 
structure  and  the  resultant  inter-dependence  between  men  has 
forced  their  attention.  The  Winnipeg  and  Seattle  general  strikes, 
the  outlaw  railroad  strike,  the  coal  and  steel  strikes,  and  the 
Boston  police  strike  have  forcefully  reminded  the  public  that  it 
must  take  an  intelligent  and  active  part  in  the  problems  of  indus- 
try. We  believe  that  when  the  public  obtains  the  real  facts  as 
to  these  problems  and  the  principles  concerned  that  in  the  long 
run  it  will  decide  rightly. 

The  manufacturers  certainly  do  not  deny  the  right  of  the 
public  to  concern  itself  with  industrial  problems.  Systems  and 
organizations  are  justified  only  as  long  as  they  advance  the 
welfare  of  society  as  a  whole.  There  are  principles  of  social 
justice,  of  justice  to  all  parties  concerned,  which  should  prevail. 
They  will  prevail  when  and  because  the  public  takes  enough 
interest  to  act.  But  the  welfare  of  society  must  rest  on  more 
than  principles  of  justice,  for  efficiency  must  be  maintained. 
There  must  be  as  little  waste  effort  as  possible.  Are  the  means 
adapted  to  the  ends?  Concretely,  is  the  Closed  Shop  based  on 
principles  of  justice  and  is  it  efficient  in  serving  the  wants  and 
needs  of  society?  Is  it  sound  economically  and  does  it  conform 
to  American  political  institutions? 


.'/,  ^  'j  /*  c°**«*|    "  -'r'- ,  * 

j   •   r1  r    (  '  '    <    J  ' 

OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 


To  answer  this  the  facts  must  all  be  known.  The  National 
Association  of  Manufacturers  fully  recognizes  such  to  be  the 
case.  It  desires  to  place  the  facts  concerning  the  Open  Shop  and 
the  Closed  Shop  before  the  public  for  its  consideration,  so  that 
it  can  decide  which  theory  and  system  of  operation  is  based  on 
the  principles  of  justice  and  economics. 

Except  where  otherwise  noted  the  statements  in  this  Ency- 
clopedia have  been  prepared  by  the  Open  Shop  Department  of 
the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers. 

We  have  endeavored  to  obtain  reliable  data.  We  are  not  to 
be  considered  as  endorsing  the  opinions  of  all  the  workers  and 
employers  who  are  quoted. 

Facts  Are  Enough 

In  pointing  out  the  specific  reasons  for  opposition  to  the 
closed  shop  we  will  present  only  facts  which  cannot  be  success- 
fully contradicted.  We  will  condemn  no  organizations  of  em- 
ployes simply  because  of  the  acts  of  individual  members.  Our 
opposition  is  based  upon  the  very  nature  of  the  closed  shop 
organizations  and  upon  the  rules  and  practices  they  adopt,  follow 
and  condone. 

We  do  not  need  to  rely  on  abuse,  ridicule,  and  vituperation 
in  condemning  the  closed  shop.  The  simple  recital  of  the  inherent 
results  in  operation  of  closed  shop  unionism  and  the  citation  of 
the  rules  of  the  unions  brings  out  clearly  the  inefficient  and 
destructive  nature  of  these  policies.  The  open  shop  is  efficient 
and  constructive,  bringing  service  to  the  community. 

No  system  or  policy  in  either  politics  or  industry  can  per- 
manently succeed  without  the  support  of  public  opinion;  the 
public  must  decide  if  conditions  shown  by  these  facts  are  best 
adapted  to  bring  about  efficiency  and  harmony  in  industry.  r 

The  Definitions 

The  first  step  is  definition.  We  take  our  definition  of  the 
Closed  Shop  from  the  Bridgemens  Magazine,  official  organ  of 
the  Iron  Workers'  Union.  Their  definition  is  as  follows.  (Issue 
of  December,  1905)  : 

Closed  shop,  then,  is  the  term  for  a  shop,  factory,  store  or  other 
industrial  place  where  workmen  cannot  obtain  employment  without  being 
members  in  good  standing  of  the  labor  union  of  their  trade.  This  is 
demanded  by  the  unions  *  *  *  They  insist  that  the  shop  shall  be 
closed  against  all  employes  who,  not  already  belonging  to  the  union  of 
their  trade,  refuse  to  join  it. 


DEFINITIONS  AND  INTRODUCTION 


The  Printing  Pressmen,  Constitution  and  By-Laws,  1909, 
declare  : 

The  words  "union  pressroom"  as  herein  employed  shall  be  construed 
to  refer  only  to  such  pressrooms  as  are  operated  wholly  by  union 
employes,  in  which  union  rules  prevail,  and  in  which  the  union  has  been 
formally^  recognized  by  the  employer. 

The  Open  Shop  exists  wherever  and  whenever  the  following 
labor  principle  enunciated  in  a  unanimous  report  by  the  Anthra- 
cite Commission,  appointed  by  President  Roosevelt,  in  1903,  is 
practiced  : 

No  person  shall  be  refused  employment,  or  in  any  way  discriminated 
against  on  account  of  membership  or  non-membership  in  any  labor  organi- 
zation, and  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against,  or  interference  with, 
any  employe  who  is  not  a  member  of  any  labor  organization  by  members 
of  such  organization. 

The  Bridgemen's  Magazine  further  says  : 

If  the  employer  will  not  yield  without  coercion,  and  the  union  is 
unable  to  coerce  him,  then  non-unionists  as  well  as  unionists  may  obtain 
employment  and  the  establishment  is  consequently  known  as  an  open  shop. 

These  definitions  bring  out  the  following  points  clearly: 

(1)  Under  the  closed  shop  only  members  in  good  standing  of  the 
unions    may   obtain   employment.     Open   shop   employers    refuse   to   dis- 
criminate on  account  of  "membership  or  non-membership  in  any  labor 
organization"  and  "non-unionists  as  well  as  unionists  may  obtain  employ- 
ment." 

(2)  The  closed  shop  "shall  be  closed"  against  men  who  "refuse  to 
join"  the  union.     The  open  shop  denies  the  right  of  union  members  to 
discriminate  against  "any  employe  who  is  not  a  member  of  a  labor  organi- 
zation." 

(3)  The  closed   shop   makes   the   employer   agree   to   employ   only 
union  members,  and  tells  the  independent  worker  that  if  he  "refuses  to 
join"  the  union  he  shall  not  have  work. 

(4)  In  the  closed   shop   "union  rules   prevail."     The   employer,   in 
other  words,  must  yield  to  the  "union  rules"  where  they  affect  the  conduct/' 
of  his  establishment. 


The  "Union  Shop" 

Sometimes  the  closed  shop  apologists  insist  that  the  term 
"closed  shop"  is  unfair,  and  that  it  has  been  coined  by  opponents 
of  "labor"  to  injure  "labor." 

Dr.  Frank  T.  Stockton,  in  a  monograph  entitled  "The  Closed 
Shop  in  American  Trade  Unions,"  says  on  page  15,  after  a 
careful  study  of  the  history  of  t  the  terms  used: 

"It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  present  meaning  of  the  term  'closed  shop' 


8  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

was  developed  independently  by  the  trade  unions  themselves  and  has 
not  been  foisted  upon  them  by  their  opponents." 

The  term  which  the  closed  shop  advocates  sometimes  say 
they  prefer  is  "union  shop,"  which  means  the  same  as  the 
appelation  "closed  shop." 

Thus,  Dr.  Stockton,  in  the  work  quoted  above,  which  was 
published  by  Johns  Hopkins  University,  says  on  page  1 1 : 

'"The  term  'union  shop'  now  means  identically  the  same  thing  as 
closed  shop." 

The  "Preferential  Shop" 

Reference  is  likewise  made  to  the  "preferential  shop,"  in 
which  employers  do  not  agree  to  employ  only  union  members, 
but  do  agree  to  give  them  preference  in  employment.  The  expe- 
rience of  New  Zealand  and  Australia  demonstrates  that  the 
"preferential  shop,"  which  distinctly  includes  the  principle  of 
discrimination,  amounts  in  nearly  all  cases  to  the  "closed  shop," 
in  which  it  is  impossible  for  a  non-union  or  independent  worker 
to  obtain  employment. 

That  this  is  so  is  supported  by  a  letter  written  by  the 
President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  early  in  Febru- 
ary, 1921,  to  a  high  school  debater  in  &ew  Jersey.  He  said: 

"The  'preferential  shop'  is  really  a  union  shop  *  *  *  The  non- 
members  are  expected  to  join  the  union  later  on  *  *  *  A  'prefer- 
ential shop'  gradually  becomes  a  union  shop  if  a  sufficient  number  of 
workers  in  the  trade  are  eventually  hired." 

Bear  in  mind  Dr.  Stockton's  statement  that  the  "union  shop" 
is  the  "closed  shop."  Miss  Helen  Marot,  from  1905  to  1913 
executive  secretary  of  the  Women's  Trade  Union  League  of  New 
York,  in  her  book  "American  Labor  Unions"  refers  on  page  120 
to  "a  union  shop,  called  outside  of  union  circles  a  'closed  shop,' 
that  is,  a  shop  where  the  owner  has  agreed  to  employ  only 
members  of  a  union." 

So  the  terms  "union  shop"  and  "preferential  shop"  are  in 
reality  only  other  terms  for  "closed  shop." 

(The  following  definitions  and  comments  were  published  in 
the  "Open  Shop  News"  December  21,  1920,  of  the  Twin  City, 
Benton  Harbor  and  St.  Joseph,  Michigan,  Employers  Asso- 
ciation.) 

CLOSED  SHOP.  This  is  a  term  used  by  trade  unions  when  referring 
to  shops,  stores,  or  factories  with  whom  they  have  an  agreement  to  employ 
none  but  union  members. 

If  a  man  owns  his  own  home,  is  the  father  of  a  large  family,  is  100% 


DEFINITIONS  AND  INTRODUCTION 


patriotic,  is  a  first-class  workman,  working  for  the  interest  of  his  company 
and  community,  he  cannot  work  in  a  Closed  Shop  unless  he  carries  a 
"trade  union  card." 

NON-UNION  SHOP.  This  is  an  expression  which  is  used  by  trade 
union  agitators  when  referring  to  firms  who  will  not  employ  members  of 
any  trade  union. 

History  will  show  that  no  firm  elected  to  operate  on  the  non-union 
basis  unless  at  some  time  it  became  difficult  to  get  cooperation  from  their 
employes  while  the  employes  were  under  union  domination.  It  has 
become  necessary  in  some  instances  for  firms  to  refuse  employment  to 
applicants  who  are  members  of  trade  unions. 

I  OPEN  SHOP  is  an  expression  given  to  firms  or  corporations  who  hire 
I    anybody  capable  of  performing  the  task  for  which  they  are  hired,  regard-y 
I   less  of  whether  or  not  they  belong  to  a  trade  union. 

What  About  the  "Non-Union  Shop?" 

Not  all  employers  whd  have  no  union  labor  in  their  employ 
operate  non-union  shops.  The  truth  is  that  most  unions  forbid 
their  members  working  alongside  independent  workers.  They 
also  refuse  to  arbitrate  the  question  of  the  closed  shop. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Benjamin  Osborne,  President  of 
the  Portland,  Oregon,  Building  Trades  Council,  before  the  Indus- 
trial Relations  Commission,  August  22,  1914,  page  4715  of  the 
record.) 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Do  the  members  of  your  crafts  or  your  unions  work 
with  non-union  men  in  this  city? 

MR.  OSBORNE  :  Not  with  the  non-union  men  of  its  own  craft.  We  at 
times — we  work — all  trades  work  a  closed  shop  to  their  own  trade. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     How  about  your  own  line  of  work? 

MR.  OSBORNE:  Well,  my  own  line  of  work;  we  work  a  closed  shop 
within  our  own  trade.  But  there  are  times  that  we  work  on  buildings 
where  there  is  some  other  trade  that  is  not  organized,  but  not  with  our 
own  organization.  This  is  an  understanding  with  the  building  trades 
council  that  we  have,  as  I  said  before,  all  of  the  large  contractors  work 
union  men.  The  work — and  all  subcontracts  are  let  to  union  firms.  There 
is  only  one  large  contractor  in  the  city  that  operates  non-union;  and,  of 
course,  there  is  some  smaller  contractors  that  operate  non-union.  And  we 
have  got  that  understanding  among  ourselves  that  certain  of  those  small 
contractors,  if  they  let  a  subcontract  to  one  of  the  union  firms,  we  allow 
the  members  of  that  organization  to  go  and  work  there.  That  is  in  order 
to  strengthen,  and  looking  to  that  time  when  we  can  all  work  on  all  jobs 
or  refuse  to  work  on  them. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  E.  B.  Ault,  editor  of  the  Seattle 
Union  Record,  official  organ  of  the  Central  Labor  Council,  before 
the  Industrial  Relations  Commission,  August  12,  1914.) 

Acting  Chairman  Commons:     Do  the  unions  of  this  locality  consider 


io  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

it  an  essential  thing  to  obtain  the  right  to  quit  work  in  case  a  non-union 
man  is  employed? 

MR.  AULT:  So  far  as  my  knowledge  goes  all  of  the  unions  affiliated 
with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  do  not  require  the  closed  shop 
conditions.  The  larger  number  do,  I  believe,  and  in  this  city  the  general 
sentiment  is  that  the  workers  should  have  the  right  to  quit  work — that 
is,  the  organized  worker  should  quit  unless  all  of  the  men  are  organized. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  COMMONS:    But  they  all  consider  that  is  essential? 

MR.  AULT:  We  consider  that  that  is  essential.  I  believe  that  is  the 
general  sentiment  of  the  labor  movement  of  this  city.  We  consider  it 
essential  that,  in  case  we  have  our  work  with  a  firm,  that  our  members 
only  should  be  employed. 

Forms  of  the  Closed  Shop 

(Extracts  from  "The  Closed  Shop  in  American  Trades 
Unions,"  by  Dr.  Frank  T.  Stockton.  Published  by  Johns  Hop- 
kins University  in  1911.  Dr.  Stockton  here  explains  the  different 
forms  of  the  closed  shop  and  the  methods  used  to  extend  it  by 
the  closed  shop  labor  organizations.) 

The  great  majority  of  American  labor  unions  fall  into  the  class  that 
accepts  the  principle  of  the  closed  shop  rule.  Whether  they  insist  upon 
its  enforcement  or  not  depends  largely  upon  expediency.  It  often  happens 
that  a  union  which  would  like  to  enforce  the  closed  shop  is  compelled  to 
tolerate  non-unionists.  The  Commercial  Telegraphers  and  th«  Textile 
Workers,  for  instance,  allow  their  members  to  work  in  open  shops 
because  they  are  not  strong  enough  to  do  otherwise.  In  every  closed  shop 
union  there  are  times  when  it  is  inexpedient  to  attempt  the  exclusion  of 
non-unionists.  There  are  thus  a  few  open  shops  in  the  jurisdiction  of 
almost  every  closed  shop  union.  It  is  customary  for  the  unions  to  insist 
that  members  employed  in  these  shops  shall  receive  union  wages.  In  rnany 
cases  the  unions  also  require  that  non-union  men  shall  be  employed 
under  union  conditions  before  union  men  can  go  into  the  shops. 

The  Simple  Closed  Shop 

In  its  simplest  form  the  principle  of  the  closed  shop  is  embodied  in 
the  rule  that  members  of  a  trade  union  shall  not  work  in  an  establishment 
where  non-unionists  are  employed,  unless  such  non-unionists  fall  within 
classes  exempted  by  the  rules  of  the  union  from  the  requirement  of  mem- 
bership. When  the  exclusion  of  non-members  is  carried  no  further  than 
this,  we  may  say  that  a  union  enforces  the  "simple  closed  shop." 

The  Extended  Closed  Shop 

The  application  of  the  closed-shop  principle  is  not  limited  to  a  single 
shop,  but  in  many  unions  has  been  extended  to  cover  two  or  more  shops. 
These  separate  shops  taken  together  are  considered  by  the  unions  as  one 
shop,  and  the  principle  of  exclusion  is  enforced  in  them  as  if  they  were 
a  single  shop. 

The  simplest  form  of  the  extended  closed  shop  is  found  in  union 
regulations  concerning  subcontracting.  In  the  building  trades  a  general' 


DEFINITIONS  AND  INTRODUCTION  n 

contractor  often  sublets  part  of  the  work  on  a  building  to  another  con- 
tractor. Where  the  job  is  a  large  one  several  of  these  subcontractors  may 
employ  men  at  work  which  falls  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  single  union. 
Thus  one  of  them  may  have  the  subcontract  for  laying  floors,  another* 
for  erecting  doors,  and  another  for  setting  window-frames.  In  each  of 
these  cases  the  subcontractor  would  employ  carpenters.  At  the  same 
time  the  general  contractor  may  have  reserved  some  carpentry  work  to 
be  done  under  his  immediate  direction. 

When  a  general  contractor  sublets  work,  he  usually  feels  that  he  is 
not  responsible  to  the  union  for  the  method  in  which  the  subcontractor 
conducts  the  work.  Since  he  himself  does  not  hire  the  workmen,  he 
regards  each  subcontract  as  a  separate  job  or  shop.  In  his  opinion  if  one 
of  his  subcontractors  employs  non-union  men,  it  should  not  be  a  cause 
of  complaint  by  the  union  against  other  subcontractors  or  against  him- 
self. Each  subcontractor  who  employs  union  men  maintains  likewise 
that  since  he  exercises  no  control  over  the  general  contractor  or  over 
other  subcontractors,  strikes  should  not  be  called  against  him  if  they 
employ  non-unionists.  Many  unions,  however,  insist  that  all  the  sub- 
contracts shall  be  regarded  together  as  a  single  job  or  shop,  and  demand 
that  all  workmen  in  their  trade  employed  on  the  contract  shall  be 
unionists. 

Tell  Employers  What  to  Do 

In  the  building  trades  the  bricklayers  and  masons  have  been  particu- 
larly active  in  this  policy.  Many  of  their  local  "working  codes"  and 
agreements  have  provided  that  "fair"  employers  shall  not  sublet  work  to 
non-union  contractors.  The  national  executive  board  has  also  decided 
in  several  cases  that  it  is  not  permissible  fo*  union  bricklayers  and  masons 
to  work  with  non-union  members  for  a  "fair"  firm  which  has  sublet  to 
non-union  employers  or  for  a  "fair"  employer  who  has  subcontracted 
from  an  "unfair"  firm.  Union  members  are  thus  prohibited  from  working 
for  one  subcontractor  if  any  other  on  the  same  building  employs  non- 
unionists  of  the  same  trade.  The  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  the 
Granite  Cutters,  and  the  Bridge  and  Structural  Iron  Workers  also  oppose 
the  employment  to  or  from  an  "unfair"  employer.  The  Bridge  and 
Structural  Iron  Workers,  however,  are  forced  to  allow  their  members  to 
work  for  "fair"  employers  who  subcontract  from  the  American  Bridge 
Company  and  other  large  "unfair"  concerns  which  are  subsidiary  to  or  in 
close  alliance  with  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation.  These  firms 
control  so  much  important  work  throughout  the  country  that  unless  the 
union  made  some  concession  its  members  would  be  deprived  of  much* 
employment. 

The  extended  closed  shop  has  also  been  enforced  by  certain  unions 
in  cases  where  a  manufacturer  buys  from  another  manufacturer  part  of 
the  goods  he  sells.  The  two  establishments,  in  these  cases,  have  been 
considered  a  single  concern.  This  policy  is  almost  entirely  confined  to 
unions  in  which  the  label  is  important.  None  of  these  unions,  as  for 
example  the  Cigar  Makers,  the  United  Garment  Workers  and  the  Uphol- 
sterers, allow  an  employer  the  use  of  the  label  if  he  buys  the  output  of  a 
non-union  factory  or  shop. 


12  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Occasionally  a  strong  union,  even  though  it  does  not  have  a  label, 
will  object  if  a  union  employer  subcontracts  to  non-union  shops.  A  case 
of  this  kind  occurred  in  the  Glass  Bottle  Blowers  in  1903.  At  that  time 
the  Cumberland  Glass  Manufacturing  Company,  a  union  plant,  sublet 
part  of  its  work  to  non-union  factories.  Its  action  was  immediately 
considered  by  the  executive  board  of  the  Blowers.  President  Hayes 
declared  that  the  company  could  not  be  "too  severely  censured,"  and  other 
members  of  the  executive  board  favored  the  calling  of  a  strike  and  the 
adoption  of  other  "radical  measures."  A  majority  of  the  board,  however, 
thought  it  best  not  to  force  the  issue,  but  soon  afterwards  the  conference 
committee  of  the  union  informed  the  representatives  of  the  Green  Glass 
Bottle  and  Vial  Manufacturers  that  the  time  was  coming  when  union  men 
would  not  work  in  a  factory  which  purchased  the  product  of  non-unionists. 

The  unions  have  extended  the  closed  shop  in  another  way.  Many 
unions  require  an  employer  who  hires  union  men  in  one  shop  to  hire 
unionists  in  other  shops  in  the  same  trade  of  which  he  is  the  proprietor. 

Refusal  to  Complete  Work 

The  unions  in  the  building  trades  sometimes  refuse  to  complete  jobs 
that  have  been  begun  by  non-unionists.  Thus  the  executive  board  of  the 
Bridge  and  Structural  Iron  workers  have  decided  that  union  members 
must  not  rivet  material  raised  by  "scabs"  or  place  corrugated  sheeting  on 
structures  erected  by  "unfair"  firms.  Union  bridgemen  are  not  allowed 
to  rivet  material  that  has  been  put  in  place  by  "scabs,"  but  they  may  make 
repairs  on  "unfairly"  built  structures.  In  the  "working  rules"  for  1903- 
I9O5>  agreed  to  by  the  Contracting  Sewer  Builders'  Association  of  Cook 
County,  Illinois,  and  by  Local  Union  No.  21,  of  the  Bricklayers  and 
Masons,  it  was  provided  that  union  bricklayers  were  not  to  build  "inverts, 
man-holes  or  catch  basins"  on  a  sewer  which  had  been  constructed  by 
non-union  labor. 

In  at  least  one  case  a  local  union  of  the  Painters  forbade  its  members 
to  paint  walls  that  had  formerly  been  painted  by  non-unionists.  While 
the  national  union  of  the  Painters  and  of  other  building  trades  unions 
do  all  in  their  power  to  assist  in  making  jobs  union  "from  beginning  to 
end,"  they  do  not  approve  of  this  policy,  since  its  adoption  would  deprive 
union  members  of  employment.  In  very  few  cases  can  a  property  owner 
or  a  contractor  be  forced  to  tear  a  building  down  and  rebuild  it  in  order 
to  be  in  a  position  to  hire  union  painters.  Consequently  most  of  the 
unions  in  the  building  trades  consider  that  it  is  usually  the  wisest  policy 
to  finish  an  "unfair"  building.  Here  again,  expediency  is  the  key-note  of 
'union  policy. 

Will  Not  Handle  Open  Shop  Material 

The  application  of  the  closed  shop  rule  has  been  extended  in  still 
another  direction  by  the  refusal  of  certain  unions  to  handle  non-union 
material.  The  unions  which  are  chiefly  concerned  with  non-union  materials 
are  those  which  have  jurisdiction  over  establishments  in  which  material 
is  manufactured  as  well  as  over  the  shops  in  which  this  material  is  put 
into  place  or  finished.  The  Amalgamated  Carpenters,  the  United  Brother- 
hood of  Carpenters,  and  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers,  for  example,  include 


DEFINITIONS  AND  INTRODUCTION  13 

"inside  men"  or  shop  workers  and  "outside  men"  or  structural  building 
workers  within  their  jurisdictions.  The  Sheet  Metal  Workers  have 
advised  their  local  unions  to  adopt  by-laws  forbidding  the  erection  by 
union  members  of  non-union  metal  work.  The  locals  have  frequently 
refused  to  erect  non-union  made  pipe  elbows,  skylights,  metal  ceilings 
and  so  on.  The  Amalgamated  Carpenters  impose  a  maximum  fine  of 
fourteen  dollars  on  a  member  for  "fixing,  finishing  or  using  work  which 
has  been  made  under  unfair  conditions,  either  in  the  United  Kingdom  or 
abroad  or  contrary  to  the  recognized  rules  of  the  district  in  which  it  has 
been  prepared."  In  the  United  States  this  rule  has  not  been  strictly 
enforced. 

The  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  has  been  more  active  against 
non-union  material  than  either  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  or  the  Amal- 
gamated Carpenters.  In  the  early  years  of  its  history  there  was  much 
agitation  against  the  use  of  "trim"  and  other  mill  work  manufactured  in 
towns  and  cities  where  the  rates  of  wages  were  low.  Since  1887  there 
has  been  increasing  agitation  against  the  use  of  all  non-union  millwork. 
In  the  year  mentioned  the  New  York  City  carpenters  were  urged  not  to 
"touch  a  piece"  of  the  product  of  a  Poughkeepsie  mill  owner  who  had 
persisted  in  running  a  non-union  shop.  By  1897  the  situation  in  New  York 
had  become  critical.  Mill  owners  in  that  city  who  ran  union  shops  were 
required  to  pay  such  comparatively  high  wages  that  they  could  not  suc- 
cessfully compete  with  non-union  mills  outside  the  city.  Consequently, 
in  order  to  save  the  New  York  mills  to  the  union  the  local  unions  of  the 
Carpenters  decided  not  to  put  up  any  non-union  "trim"  or  to  work  on  a 
job  where  it  was  used.  Many  strikes  were  called.  The  movement  against 
outside  non-union  trim  finally  assumed  such  importance  that  the  executive 
board  of  the  International  union  gave  financial  assistance  to  the  New 
York  district  council.  As  a  result  of  this  movement  the  Carpenters 
claim  that  many  mills  in  the  small  towns  about  New  York  were  unionized. 

In  many  other  localities  similar  measures  have  been  taken  by  local 
unions  and  district  councils  of  the  Carpenters.  More  and  more  the 
officers  of  the  union  have  come  to  believe  "that  the  carpenter  in  order  to 
hold  what  rightfully  belongs  to  him,  must  control  the  manufacture  of 
the  material"  which  he  erects.  In  1904  the  constitution  of  the  national 
union  was  amended  so  as  to  provide  that  local  organizations  must  pro- 
mote the  use  of  "trim  and  shop-made  carpenter  work"  with  the  union 
label.  The  chief  value  of  the  label  to  the  Carpenters  at  the  present  time 
is  that  it  affords  a  convenient  and  sure  method  for  union  carpenters  at 
work  on  a  building  to  determine  whether  "fair"  material  is  being  used. 

The  Joint  Closed  Shop 

It  has  been  noted  in  the  chapter  on  the  simple  closed  shop  that  when 
a  national  union  has  jurisdiction  over  two  or  more  branches  or  trades 
organized  into  separate  local  unions,  it  is  usual  to  require  local  unions  of 
one  trade  to  assist  local  unions  in  the  other  trade  to  establish  the  closed 
shop.  Very  often,  however,  combinations  have  been  formed  among 
national  unions  and  among  local  unions  of  different  national  unions  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  mutual  discrimination  against  non-union  men. 
The  group  of  shops  thus  covered  in  any  particular  case  may  be  fittingly 


14  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

called,  in  the  aggregate,  a  "joint  closed  shop."  The  joint  closed  shop  is 
distinguished  from  the  "extended  closed  shop"  by  the  fact  that  the 
cooperation  against  the  employment  of  non-union  men  is  among  national 
unions  or  among  the  branches  of  different  national  unions.  The  joint 
closed  shop  has  been  principally  employed  in  certain  well-defined  groups 
of  allied  trades.  These  will  be  considered  in  the  order  of  their  importance. 

The  building  trades.  In  strong  trade-union  centers  it  has  been 
increasingly  difficult  in  recent  years  to  get  a  union  man  of  one  trade  to 
work  with  a  non-unionist  of  any  other  trade  on  structural  building  work. 
In  many  cases  discrimination  against  non-unionists  has  been  extended 
even  to  unskilled  building  laborers.  It  has  been  comparatively  easy  to 
secure  the  cooperation  of  the  unions  in  the  building  trades  in  establishing 
the  joint  closed  shop  because  their  members  ordinarily  work  in  intimate 
association  with  each  other.  Although  jurisdictional  disputes  have  hin- 
dered the  development  of  amicable  relations,  there  has  been,  on  the  whole, 
a  greater  sense  of  unity  and  a  stronger  spirit  of  fellowship  among  the 
building  trades  unions  than  among  any  other  group  of  unions. 

Another  factor  in  the  success  of  the  joint  closed  shop  in  the  building 
trades  has  been  that  six  or  seven  unions  of  approximately  uniform 
strength  and  influence  include  the  great  mass  of  the  workmen.  These 
unions  are  the  more  willing  to  assist  each  other  inasmuch  as  each  of 
them  incurs  practically  the  same  risks  and  secures  practically  equal 
benefits  by  joint  action.  The  smaller  unions  have  also  usually  been 
willing  to  assist  to  the  extent  of  their  power  in  any  joint  movement,  but 
the  greatest  factor  in  the  success  of  the  joint  closed  shop  among  these 
unions  has  been  the  peculiar  effectiveness  of  the  sympathetic  strike  in 
the  building  trades.  Since  a  building  must  be  erected  on  a  certain  spot 
and  within  a  fixed  time,  a  strike  even  of  a  single  union  is  a  serious  mat- 
ter; but  if  a  group  of  unions  strike  simultaneously  to  redress  the  grievance 
of  one,  the  employer  is  placed  at  an  enormously  increased  disadvantage. 

Use  of  Compulsion 

The  power  of  the  joint  closed  shop  has  been  frequently  used  to  enforce 
the  extended  closed  shop.  The  National  Building  Trades  Council,  through 
its  general  secretary-treasurer,  on  more  than  one  occasion  has  expressed 
itself  as  opposed  to  allowing  "fair"  employers  to  sublet  work  to  non- 
union firms.  An  agreement  between  a  local  council  and  employers  allow- 
ing non-union  subcontracting  was  declared  to  be  "a  peculiar  guarantee," 
permissible  only  in  lockouts  "as  a  policy  to  keep  the  council  and  unions 
intact."  It  was  also  one  of  the  aims  of  the  National  Building  Trades 
Council  to  compel  an  employer  to  be  "fair"  to  the  affiliated  unions  in  all 
parts  of  the  country.  At  the  time  of  its  organization  in  1897  many 
building  contractors  no  longer  confined  themselves  to  local  operations 
but  undertook  work  in  many  different  sections.  If  one  council  became 
involved  in  a  dispute  with  a  contractor  while  he  was  carrying  on  work 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  another  council,  it  was  the  policy  of  the  national 
organization  where  practicable  to  force  the  contractor  to  grant  union 
conditions  in  the  former  locality  as  the  price  of  employing  union  men  in 
the  latter. 


DEFINITIONS  AND  INTRODUCTION  15 

Closed  Shop  History 

(From  "History  of  Labor  in  the  United  States,"  by  John 
R.  Commons  and  associates.  Volume  I,  pages  130-132.  The 
foot  notes  are  not  included.  Early  history  of  the  closed  shop.) 

Just  as  the  strike  was  the  direct  means  of  enforcing  demands  upon 
the  employers,  so  the  closed  shop,  in  addition  to  being  a  corollary  of  the 
strike,  was  also  the  indirect  method  of  enforcing  and  maintaining 
demands.  The  term,  "closed  shop,"  is,  of  course,  quite  recent  in  origin, 
but  aptly  describes  the  policy  adopted  by  the  cordwainers  of  Philadelphia 
when  they  effected  their  first  permanent  organization  of  1794,  as  well  as 
by  the  other  cordwainer  societies.  It  consisted  partly  in  compelling  the 
employer  to  retain  none  but  society  men  in  his  shop  and  partly  in  pre- 
venting non-society  men  from  getting  employment. 

The  Philadelphia,  New  York,  and  Pittsburgh  cordwainers  required 
outsiders  to  join  them  as  soon  as  they  came  to  town,  and  the  New  York 
cordwainers  imposed  a  heavy  fine  for  failure  to  do  so.  The  Pittsburgh 
society  even  went  so  far  as  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  non-members, 
requiring  them  to  appear  at  meetings  and  defend  themselves  against 
charges,  remitting  a  fine  only  on  condition  that  the  offender  promise  to 
join  the  society.  Scabs  were  hounded  and  heavily  punished.  One  manu- 
facturer in  Philadelphia,  who  refused  to  discharge  a  scab,  held  out  for 
over  a  year  and  a  half,  but  was  finally  forced  to  move  his  business  to 
another  city.  Other  employers  were  compelled  to  pay  the  fines  of  the 
scabs  or  to  instruct  the  scabs  to  do  so  themselves  under  pain  of  discharge. 

It  was  as  a  means  of  disciplining  the  scab  that  the  boycott  was  first 
thought  of.  Here  again  the  shoemakers  were  the  pioneers.  The  Phila- 
delphia cordwainers  refused  to  eat  at  the  same  boarding  ho'use  where  non- 
union men  boarded.  This  social  ostracism  proved  effective.  Boycotting 
of  commodities  was  unknown. 

The  strategic  hold  of  the  shoemakers,  owing  to  scarcity  of  men  in 
their  trade,  is  illustrated  by  the  following  complaint  of  a  master  at  the 
Pittsburgh  conspiracy  trial:  "Some  of  the  journeymen  were  training  out 
of  town,  and  I  was  afraid  if  I  did  not  give  the  wages  I  would  not  have  a 
stock  of  work  to  go  down  the  river."  Another,  who  employed  eleven 
journeymen,  did  no  business  at  all  during  the  turn-out  in  1815,  while  a 
third,  who  ordinarily  hired  from  fourteen  to  twenty-two  journeymen, 
had  only  three  during  the  strike. 

While  the  cordwainers  generally  took  the  aggressive,  demanding  out- 
right from  the  masters  an  absolute  closed  shop,  the  printers,  less  strongly 
organized,  groped  their  way  cautiously  and  meekly,  made  demands,  but 
did  not  press  for  their  enforcement.  Their  attitude,  however,  was  stated 
by  the  New  York  printers  in  1809  as  follows:  "In  all  classes  of  society, 
experience  has  proved  that  there  have  been  men  who,  laying  aside  those 
principles  of  honor  and  good  faith  which  ought  to  govern  their  conduct 
towards  their  brethren,  and  for  a  mere  gratification  of  private  interest, 
have  set  aside  the  obligations  they  were  under,  by  violating  the  ordinance 
which  they  have  pledged  themselves  to  maintain.  It  is  for  the  interest 
of  the  profession  that  such  persons  *  *  *  '  should  be  discountenanced 


16  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

The  printers  denounced  scabs  but  did  little  else.  The  cordwainers 
not  only  denounced  them  but  made  their  exclusion  from  employment 
the  whip  of  union  discipline.  "The  scab  law,"  said  one  of  their  wit- 
nesses in  Philadelphia,  "was  a  stimulus  to  the  members  to  support  what 
they  undertook." 

The  theory  of  the  closed  shop  was  propounded  by  counsel  for  the 
New  York  cordwainers  in  defending  them  against  conspiracy  charges. 
He  explained  their  refusal  to  work  with  those  who  violated  "the  rules 
and  ordinances"  of  the  union  as  follows :  "If  the  majority  of  the  work- 
men were  content  with  their  wages,  the  majority  would  be  harmless; 
but  if  an  individual  will  seek  to  better  himself  at  the  expense  of  his 
fellows,  when  they  are  suffering  privation  to  obtain  terms,  it  is  not 
hard  that  they  Cleave  him  to  his  employers;  and  the  most  inoffensive  man- 
ner in  which  they  can  show  their  displeasure  is  by  shaking  the  dust  off 
their  feet,  and  leaving  the  shop  where  he  is  engaged."  He  contended 
"that  in  times  of  public  division  no  man  should  be  neutral,"  which  "tended 
to  obviate  the  evils  of  deception  and  dissimulation.  It  prevented  matters 
from  being  carried  to  extremity,  and  it  gave  each  party  a  clear  knowledge 
of  its  own  strength,  and  furnished  a  measure  by  which  the  success  of 
the  struggle  might  be  foreseen,  and  useless  contest  avoided." 

Extent  of  Open  Shop  Movement 

(From  an  address    of    President    William  H.  Barr   to    the 
National  Founders  Association,   November   17,   1920.) 

A  change  has  been  brought  about  by  the  determination  of  men  to 
free  themselves  from  the  unsound  and  unnatural  control  so  imposed  upon 
them.  Today,  that  determination  is  manifest  in  the  open  shop  move- 
ment. Its  progress  is  a  matter  of  economy  to  those  who  began  it; 
of  consolation  to  those  engaged  in  industry;  and  a  stimulant  to  the 
patriotism  of  every  one.  A  partial,  but  careful  survey  of  irresistible 
activities  in  behalf  of  the  open  shop  shows  that  540  organizations  in  247 
cities,  of  forty-four  states,  are  engaged  in  promoting  this  American 
principle  in  the  employment  relations.  A  total  of  twenty-three  national 
industrial  associations  are  included  in  these  agencies.  In  addition,  1,665 
local  Chambers  of  Commerce,  following  the  splendid  example  of  the 
United  States  Chamber  of  Commerce,  are  also  pledged  to  the  principle 
of  the  open  shop. 


LABOR  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  17 

CHAPTER   II. 

Labor  Attitude  of  the  National  Association  of 

Manufacturers  /  '  ^  * 

Manufacturers 


Declaration  of  Labor  Principles  of  the  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers  of  the  United  States  of  America 


Asiatic 


Fair   dealing   is   the   fundamental   and   basic   principle   on   which   ' 
"elations  between  employers  and  employes  should  rest. 

2.  The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  is  not  opposed  to  * 
organizations  of  labor  as  such,  but  it  is  unalterably  opposed  to  boycotts,  • 
black-lists  and  other  illegal  acts  of  interference  with  the  personal  liberty » 
of  employer  or  employe. 

^  3-  No  persons  shall  be  refused  employment  or  in  any  way  discrim-  • 
mated  against  on  account  of  membership  or  non-membership  in  any  labor' 
organization,  and  there  should  be  no  discriminating  against  or  inter-* 
ference  with  any  employe  who  is  not  a  member  of  a  labor  organization, 
by  members  of  such  organization. 

4.  With  due  regard  to  contracts,  it  is  the  right  of  the  employe  to* 
leave  his  employment  whenever  he  sees  fit,  and  it  is  the  right  of  the* 
employer  to  discharge  any  employe  when  he  sees  fit. 

W  5-  Employers  must  be  free  to  .employ  their  work  people  at  wages* 
nrutually  satisfactory,  without  interference  or  dictation  on  the  part  of* 
individuals  or  organizations  not  directly  parties  to  such  contracts. 
:sj^6.  Employers  must  be  unmolested  and  unhampered  in  the  manage-* 
ment  of  their  business,  in  determining  the  amount  and  quality  of  their* 
product,  and  in  the  use  of  any  methods  or  systems  of  pay  which  are  just* 
and  equitable. 

-J{"  7.  In  the  interest  of  employes  and  employers  of  the  country,  no  • 
limitation  should  be  placed  upon  the  opportunities  of  any  person  to  learn . 
any  trade  to  which  he  or  she  may  be  adapted. 

8.  The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  disapproves  abso-* 
lutely  of  strikes  and  lockouts,  and  favors  an  equitable  adjustment  of  all' 
differences  between  employers  and  employes,  by  any  amicable  method  that* 
will  preserve  the  rights  of  both  parties. 

jfc°-  Employes  have  the  right  to  contract  for  thair  services  in  a  col-* 
lective  capacity,  but  any  contract  that  contains  a  stipulation  that  employ-  • 
ment  should  be  denied  to  men  not  parties  to  the  contract  is  an  invasion  • 
of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  American  workman,  is  against  public, 
policy  and  is  in  violation  of  jthe  conspiracy  laws.  This  Assptiat 
declares  its  unalterable  antagonism  to-  the  closed  shop  /and  iruSist^/Vhat  * 
the  doors  of  no  industry  be//closedyagainst  American  workmen/ clause  of 
their  membership  or  non/membeF§hip  in  Any  labor  ofganizatic 

10.    The  xNationar  Association    of    Manufacturers    pledges    itself   to* 
oppose  any  and  all  legislation  not  in  accord  with  the  foregoing  declar-  * 
ation. 


i8  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

What  the  Declaration  Means 

(The  following  commentaries  on  those  sections  of  the  above 
declarations  which  bear  on  the  Open  Shop,  were  made  by  Presi- 
dent Stephen  C.  Mason  in  an  article  appearing  in  the  Annals  of 
the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  March, 
1919.) 

(2)  The    National    Association    of    Manufacturers    is    not 
opposed  to  organizations  of  labor  as  such,  but  it  is  unalterably 
opposed  to   boycotts,  blacklists  and  other  illegal  acts   of  inter- 
ference with  the  personal  liberty  of  employer  or  employe. 
From   its   organization  this   Association   has   never   denied   nor   con- 
demned the  right  to  existence  of  labor  unions.     It  has,  however,  insist- 
ently demanded  that  labor  organizations  be  founded  upon  an  enlightened 
public   consciousness,   and  their   operations   based   upon   legitimate   prin- 
ciples, and  that  they  recognize  the  right  of  all  workers  to  engage  for 
their  services  under  such  lawful  conditions  as  may  seem  best  to  them. 
Such    organizations    should    establish    responsibility    for    their    contracts. 
Power  without  responsibility  always  leads  to  abuse.     There  can  be  little 
room  for  doubt  that  the  general  disuse  into  which  such  labor  union  tactics 
as  boycotts  and  black-lists  have  happily  fallen  in  recent  years  has  proved 
not  only  their  illegal  nature  (as  numerous  court  decisions  proclaim)  but 
the  emphatic  disfavor  of  the  general  public  regarding  such  practices. 

"Cruel,"  "cowardly,"  "immoral"  and  "anti-social,"  are  some  of  the 
judicial  characterizations  of  the  un-American  labor  union  weapon,  the 
boycott.  The  pernicious  nature  of  both  this  practice  and  that  of  labor 
union  black-lists  is  that  they  are  serious  invasions  of  the  rights  and 
personal  liberties  not  only  of  the  employer  and  employe,  parties  to  a 
dispute,  but  inflict  injury  on  third  persons  who  are  not  interested  parties 
in  the  controversy.  We  equally  condemn  any  such  practices  on  the  part 
of  employers.  Against  such  oppressive  illegal  acts  the  Association  has 
stood  and  always  will  stand  firm. 

(3)  No  person  should  be  refused  employment  or  in  any  way 
discriminated  against  on  account  of  membership  or  non-member- 
ship in  any  labor  organization,  and  there  should  be  no  discrim- 
inating against  or  interference  with  any  employe  who  is  not  a 
member  of  a  labor  organization  by  members  of  such  organizations. 
This    declaration    embraces    the    fundamental   principle    that    £very 

person  who  labors  must  have  the  freedom  to  engage  _for__  and  deliver  his 
of  her  services  without  interference;  conversely,  every  employer  of  labor 
must  have  the  freedom  to  hire  the  class,  grade,  quantity  and  quality  of_ 
labor  best  suited  to  his  needs.  This  is  the  definition  of  the  important 
•industrial  principle  of  the  "Open  Shop."  It  is  a  principle  that  should 
neither  be  denied  nor  compromised  in  the  interest  of  either  employers 
or  employes,  and  is  a  sound  doctrine  interwoven  with  certain  inherent, 
•  individual,  human  rights.  An  analysis  of  this  tenet  shows  it  to  be  neither 
offensive  nor  destructive.  On  the  contrary  it  is  a  safeguard  of  a  sacred 
individual  human  right  whether  it  is  industrial  in  application  and  exer- 
cise, or  otherwise.  It  is  a  concept  upon  which  our  Constitution  and 
political  institutions  are  based. 


LABOR  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  19 

(7)  In  the  interest  of  employes  and  employers  of  the  coun- 
try no  limitation  should  be  placed  upon  the  opportunities  of  any 
person  to  learn  any  trade  to  which  he  or  she  may  be  adapted. 

Unrestricted  opportunity  for  industrial  education  of  the  youth  of 
the  land  so  that  there  may  be  produced  efficient  industrial  workers,  is 
the  underlying  thought  involved  in  this  statement.  It  implies  a  complete 
rejection  of  the  erroneous  and  harmful  principle  of  trade  unions  by 
which  limitations  are  placed  upon  the  number  of  apprentices  permitted 
to  be  employed  in  the  skilled  trades.  In  recent  years  there  has  been  a 
widespread  awakening  of  public  interest  in  the  subject  of  vocational 
training.  Municipal,  state  and  even  the  federal  government,  realizing 
the  dire  necessity  for  the  more  general  systematic  industrial  training  of 
our  youth,  have  undertaken  extensive  plans  in  this  direction.  For  more 
than  twenty  years  the  employers  of  the  country  embraced  in  the  ranks  of 
the  Association  have  not  only  recognized  the  urgency  of  this  problem,  but 
have  consistently  made  every  possible  effort  to  increase  the  opportunities 
of  any  person  to  learn  any  trade  to  which  he  or  she  may  be  adapted. 
The  widespread  recognition  of  this  question  during  recent  years  is  an 
indication  of  the  soundness  of  the  position  taken  by  the  Association  upon 
this  question. 

(9)  Employes  have  the  right  to  contract  for  their  services 
in  a  collective  capacity,  but  any  contract  that  contains  a  stipula- 
tion that  employment  should  be  denied  to  men  not  parties  to  the 
contract,  is  an  invasion  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  Ameri- 
can workman,  and  is  against  public  policy  and  in  violation  of  the 
conspiracy  law.  This  Association  declares  its  unalterable  antag- 
onism to  the  closed  shop,  and  insists  that  the  doors  of  no  indus- 
try be  closed  against  American  workmen  because  of  their  mem- 
bership or  non-membership  in  any  labor  organization. 

The  evident  purpose  of  such  a  declaration  as  this  is  the  affirmation 
of  the  sacred  and  unassailable  constitutional  right  of  every  worker  and 
of  every  person  to  engage  for  his  labor  in  a  free  and  unrestricted 
market.  Despite  the  efforts  of  many  to  garble  and  destroy  this  vital 
industrial  truth,  it  is  unquestionable  that  the  prosperity  of  this  country 
depends  upon  strict  adherence  to  this  fundamental  rule  of  liberty  and 
justice.  The  employers  of  America  regard  this  principle  as  something 
that  cannot,  in  the  interests  of  free  institutions,  be  abridged  by  legis- 
lation. In  other  words,  we  insist  that  no  man  or  group  of  men  whether 
employers  or  employes,  has  any  right  to  place  a  brand  upon  any  human 
being  and  say  that  those  so  branded,  regardless  of  merit,  are  emptied  to 
special  privileges,  and  in  the  same  breath  to  say  that  those  who  a¥e  not  so 
branded  and  not  willing  to  be  so  branded  must  be  limited  in  or  prevented 
from  the  full  exercise  of  their  constitutional  rights. 

It  may  be  timely  to  record  the  fact  that  the  question  of  collective, 
shop  bargaining,  or  cooperative  representation  already  has  had  earnest 
consideration  by  a  large  number  of  manufacturers  throughout  the  coun- 
try, and  practical  and  successful  plans  embodying  such  purposes  are 
already  in  'operation  in  many  important  establishments.  In  the  adoption 


20  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

of  these  industrial  representation  plans  no  question  is  raised  regarding 
the  membership  of  workers  in  outside  organizations. 

These  plans  present  a  method  by  which  employes  can  deal  collectively, 
through  representatives  selected  or  elected  by  them,  with  their  employers 
in  relation  to  all  questions  and  conditions  of  employment.  They  will 
furnish  a  new  channel  of  communication  between  wage-earners  and 
wage-payers  whereby  they  may  better  be  able  to  avoid  misunderstandings 
and  mutually  agree  upon  satisfactory  adjustments  of  wages,  working 
conditions,  etc.,  and  promote  and  establish  such  friendly  relationships 
and  cooperative  spirit  as  will  be  beneficial  and  to  the  best  interests  of 
both.  Such  activities  are  clearly  within  the  scope  of  this  principle  of 
our  organization. 

Scope  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  James  A.  Emery,  General  Counsel 
of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  before  the  Indus- 
trial Relations  Commission,  April  8,  1914.) 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  What  is  the  general  purpose  of  the  National  Asso- 
ciation of  Manufacturers? 

MR.  EMERY:  The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  was  organ- 
ized in  1895  primarily  for  the  promotion  especially  of  foreign  trade,  and 
as  it  grew  in  years  it  developed  a  wider  range  of  interest  for  the  manu- 
facturer, and  it  deals  today  with  practically  every  phase  of  social  and 
industrial  activity  in  which  the  manufacturer  as  such  is  interested. 

It  maintains  its  headquarters  in  New  York  and  carries  on  an  exten- 
sive foreign  department.  Those  who  might  have  more  interest  will  find 
a  very  interesting  account  of  it  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post  of  two 
weeks  ago  by  Mr.  Forest  Crissey,  who  is  writing  a  series  of  articles  on 
trade  organizations,  and  in  that  he  speaks  of  this  as  the  largest  trade 
organization  in  the.  world,  and  he  gives  a  most  interesting  account  of 
trade  organizations. 

The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  provides  for  the  ship- 
ment of  freight  of  every  kind  for  its  members.  It  has  a  department  of 
translations,  in  which  the  foreign  correspondence  of  manufacturers  can 
be  carried  on  in  some  thirty  languages,  letters  being  received  and  trans- 
lated and  others  written.  It  has  some  21,000  correspondents  in  all  the 
chief  commercial  centers  of  the  world,  who  keep  it  informed  as  to  trade 
matters  for  the  benefit  of  its  members.  It  has  a  foreign  collection  bureau 
and  a  domestic  collection  bureau,  and  a  shipping  and  transportation 
bureau.  It  has  an  extensive  system  of  inspection  for  its  factories.  There 
is  attached  to  it  as  a  subsidiary  organization  a  mutual  fire  insurance 
company,  for  the  benefit  of  its  members,  and  of  course  it  informs  its 
members  as  fully  as  it  can  on  all  questions  of  interest  to  the  manu- 
facturers. For  instance,  all  questions  which  would  develop  in  relation 
to  the  conditions  under  which  manufacturers  do  business  in  every 
State  in  the  Union,  as  well  as  in  every  foreign  country. 

The  legal  department  attends  to  all  the  questions  that  necessarily 
arise  under  those  circumstances.  It  keeps  track  of  all  legislation  of 


LABOR  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  21 

the  States  and  in  the  National  Legislature,  of  interest  to  manufacturers. 
It  informs  them  fully  as  to  their  terms  and  meaning.  It  represents 
them  in  opposition  to  such  legislation  as  they  oppose,  and  in  the  pro- 
motion of  such  legislation  as  they  express  formal  interest  in.  There  is 
practically  no  matter  that  would  inform  a  manufacturer  concerning 
conditions  in  the  trade  at  home  or  abroad,  and  practically  no  questions 
of  interest  to  the  manufacturer  of  which  it  does  not  undertake  to  keep 
abreast. 

In  the  last  five  years  it  has  carried  on  a  very  extensive  movement 
for  accident  prevention  and  workmen's  compensation.  It  was  the  first 
large  organization  in  this  country  to  take  up  that  work,  and  it  made 
extensive  foreign  investigations  as  to  the  practical  operation  of  work- 
men's compensation  laws  abroad  and  methods  of  accident  prevention, 
and  from  this  experience  it  has  undertaken  to  apply  the  fruits  in  this 
country,  subject  to  the  modifications  that  exist  in  our  differing  forms  of 
work.  We  have  a  standing  committee  in  charge  of  that  work,  and  a 
continuous  inspection  is  going  on  of  the  factories  of  all  our  members 
with  respect  to  increasing  the  facilities  for  the  prevention  of  accident, 
and  the  inculcation  of  those  habits  which  most  readily  and  powerfully 
lead  to  accident  prevention. 

In  addition  to  that,  there  is  a  very  wide  range  of  educational  work 
carried  on  in  connection  with  that  and  other  subjects.  Practically  every 
shop  of  the  members  of  the  national  association  has  been  visited  in  the 
last  four  years  by  lecturers,  who,  through  moving  pictures  and  a  form  of 
address,  have  undertaken  to  enlist  the  cooperation  of  both  employers  and 
employes  in  the  movement  for  accident  prevention  and  vocational  edu- 
cation. We  have  spent  very  large  sums  of  money  in  that  work  and  have 
a  very  large  staff  carrying  it  on,  and  the  films  which  have  been  made 
for  the  purpose  of  strikingly  depicting  these  efforts  and  principles  to 
the  eye  have  not  only  been  used  among  the  employes  or  members  of  the 
Association,  but  they  have  been  generally  at  the  service  of  public  bodies 
of  any  kind  or  character  in  parts  of  the  country  that  were  interested  in 
the  subject,  and  those  lectures  on  those  subjects  have  been  carried  on 
before  commercial  and  manufacturers'  associations  in  every  part  of 
the  country. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  I  presume  that  among  these  activities  you  mention 
the  relation  of  employer  and  employe  have  received  the  attention  of  the 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers? 

MR.  EMERY:  Very  decided  attention  in  the  last  ten  years,  notably. 
Much  attention  was  not  paid  to  that  at  first,  but  it  became  more  and 
more  a  subject  of  discussion  in  conventions  and  meetings,  and  from  1903 
or  1904  it  may  be  said  to  have  been  one  of  the  dominant  questions  in 
the  life  of  the  National  Association  and  the  Association  has  expressed 
itself  very  vigorously  with  regard  to  the  principles  which  it  believes 
ought  to  underlie  the  relations  of  employer  and  employe,  and  has  under- 
taken by  every  legitimate  means  to  defend  those  principles  against  attack. 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood.  I  mean  by  that  there  is  no  oppo- 
sition, so  far  as  I  know,  among  members  of  the  National  Association 
of  Manufacturers,  to  the  principle  of  collective  bargaining.  There  are 


22  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

many  members  of  the  Association  who  deal  with  their  employes  col- 
lectively, and  the  Association  has  never  at  any  time  interfered  with  the 
action  of  its  members  in  that  regard,  but  it  has  opposed  the  making  of 
an  exclusive  collective  bargain  which  meant  the  establishment  of  what 
we  term  a  closed  shop. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  But  otherwise  this  section  5  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood or  read  as  preventing  collective  bargaining? 

ME.  EMERY:  Not  as  expressing  an  opinion  in  opposition  to  it; 
no,  sir. 

Ask  Equality  Before  the  Law  for  Employers  and  Workers 

(From  statements  of  James  A.  Emery,  general  counsel, 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  before  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Interstate  Commerce,  Sixty-second  Congress.) 

I,  and  all  I  represent,  are  firm  believers  in  the  right  of  men  to 
organize  for  the  protection  of  their  hours,  labor  and  working  conditions. 
Many  thousands  of  men  employed  by  my  clients  are  members  of  labor 
organizations  of  all  kinds,  and  we  do  not  and  never  have  questioned 
their  right  to  form  unions  and  by  legitimate  action  enforce  their  demands. 
We  ask  for  no  other  restrictions  for  them  than  the  same  law  places  on 
all  citizens.  We  insist  that  any  combination  of  workmen  or  employers 
that  deliberately  undertakes  to  compel  another  man  to  engage  in  inter- 
state commerce  in  accordance  with  its  will  or  not  at  all,  or  that  under- 
takes to  ruin  the  trade  and  persecute  the  trader  who  differs  from  its 
economic  judgment  and  will  not  bow  to  its  economic  demands,  always 
has  been,  and  in  a  free  country,  always  must  be,  condemned  by  law, 
whether  it  assumes  corporate  or  voluntary  form.  That  principle  always 
has  been  recognized  in  applying  the  Sherman  Act  to  combinations  of 
capital  or  employers,  as  witness  the  case  of  M,ontague  vs.  Lowry  (193 
U.  S.),  which  was  a  voluntary  combination  of  tile  dealers;  or  the  case  of 
Coal  Dealers'  Association  (85  Fed.  252)  which  was  condemned  and  dis- 
solved by  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  in  California.  These 
and  other  voluntary  associations,  without  capital  stock,  and  not  con- 
ducted for  profit,  in  the  same  sense  as  a  labor  organization,  have  offended 
the  Sherman  Act.  If  we  do  not  continue  to  restrain  or  punish  combi- 
nations of  workmen  when  they  undertake  to  destroy  and  oppress  traders 
or  other  workmen  engaged  in  interstate  commerce,  it  will  not  for  equal 
reasons  of  principle  be  possible  to  protect  the  same  trader  against  the 
acts  of  a  voluntary  association  of  employers,  who  undertake  to  compel 
him  to  do  business  in  accordance  with  their  will  and  upon  their  terms, 
or  not  at  all,  as  did  the  combinations  of  tile  dealers  and  coal  dealers. 

No  Suppression  or  Discrimination 

(The  following  is  part  of  a  statement  by  Mr.  J.  Philip  Bird 
in  the  New  York  Herald  of  January  16,  1921.  It  is  a  discussion 
of  the  present  open  -shop  movement.) 

The  country-wide  movement  for  the  open  shop,  which  is  attracting 


LABOR  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  23 

attention  as  one  of  the  most  remarkable  phenomena  in  American  indus- 
trial history,  is  entirely  spontaneous,  with  no  central  control  or  authority 
of  any  kind,  so  it  was  asserted  yesterday  by  J.  Philip  Bird,  general 
manager  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers. 

"More  than  500  organizations  in  250  cities  have  now  indorsed  the 
plan,"  said  Mr.  Bird,  "and  prominent  manufacturers  declare  they  could 
not  stern  the  tide  if  they  wished." 

According  to  the  resolution  first  adopted  by  the  National  Association 
of  Manufacturers  in  1903,  the  open  shop  is  one  in  which  "no  person 
should  be  refused  employment  or  in  any  way  discriminated  against  on 
account  of  membership  or  non-membership  in  any  labor  organization." 
The  Association  also  declared  "it  is  unalterably  opposed  to  boycotts." 

"The  declarations  mean  exactly  what  they  say,"  Mr.  Bird  declared 
yesterday.  "It  was  stated  that  'employes  have  the  right  to  contract  for 
their  services  in  a  collective  capacity,'  but  that  no  collective  agreement 
shall  forbid  employment  to  those  who,  for  any  reason,  refuse  to  join  a 
labor  organization. 

*  "There  is  no  desire  in  this  day  and  age  of  organization  to  suppress 
and  eliminate  organizations  of  employes.  The  great  mass  of  union 
workers  are  honest  God-fearing  and  liberty-loving  Americans.  But, 
according  to  William  Z.  Foster  of  steel  strike  fame,  the  unions  are  con- 
trolled by  one  per  cent,  of  their  total  membership.  It  is  the  actions  and 
policies  of  tiffs  one  per  cent,  to  which  the  employers  object/'' 

"The  closed  shoppers  frequently  seize  upon  isolated  instances,  some 
large,  but  most  small,  of  open  shop  advocates  who  abuse  the  principle. 
It  will  be  found  in  most  of  the  cases  where  employers  discriminate 
against  union  men  that  such  discrimination  is  the  result  of  policies  and 
actions  of  the  unions  with  which  they  would  have  to  deal.  For  instance, 
certain  employers  refuse  absolutely  to  deal  with  the  Structural  Iron 
Workers,  thirty-eight  of  whose  leaders  were  sentenced  to  prison  a  few 
years  ago  for  destroying  the  property  of  employers.  Twenty-one  of 
these  men  were  afterward  elected  to  local  and  national  office  in  the  union, 
which  still  belongs  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

"Then,  again,  many  employers  are  unable  in  any  case  to  employ 
union  men  because  of  union  rules  forbidding  their  working  alongside 
independent  workers.  It  is  a  fundamental  policy  of  closed  shop  union 
rules  to  refuse  to  arbitrate  the  question  of  the  closed  shop.  The  general 
policy  of  the  closed  shop  is  to  single  out  an  individual  case  for 
attack,  hoping  the  public  will  forget  the  principles  involved  and  will  fail 
to  consider  the  thousands  upon  thousands  of  establishments  all  over 
the  country  willing  and  anxious  to  operate,  where  it  is  possible,  under 
real  open  shop  conditions." 


24  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

CHAPTER  III. 

Structure  and  Finances  of  Labor  Unions 

The  labor  situation  can  never  be  properly  understood  without 
a  correct  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  the  organizations  actively 
supporting  the  closed  shop.  We  should,  moreover,  know,  or  at 
least  have  ready  for  reference,  the  internal  structure  of  these 
bodies. 

The  Federation  of  Labor 

(From  an  article  explaining  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  appearing  in  the  American  Labor  Year  Book,  1917-1918, 
published  by  the  Rand  School,  a  Socialist  propaganda  organiza- 
tion. With  certain  figures  corrected  by  later  statistics  from 
official  sources.) 

The  character  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  which  was 
organized  in  1881,  though  not  named  "A.  F.  of  L."  until  five  years 
afterwards,  was  influenced  to  no  small  extent  by  the  character  of  its 
predecessor — the  Knights  of  Labor.  This  organization,  which  reached 
its  zenith  in  1885  came  to  grief  largely  because  of  its  combining  in  the 
local  assemblies  laborers  of  all  varieties  and  many  employers  and  non- 
wage-earners;  its  dual  organizations  of  labor  assemblies  and  trade  assem- 
blies ;  its  over-centralization ;  its  frequent  participation  in  sympathetic 
strikes  and  its  peculiar  ventures. 

The  A.  F.  of  L.  is  in  reality  a  federation.  Local  unions  are  generally 
affiliated  with  it  through  the  nationals.  It  now  contains  no  national 
and  international  unions,  46  state  federations,  926  city  central  bodies, 
1,286  local  trade  and  federal  labor  unions,  36,741  local  unions,  5  depart- 
ments and  682  local  department  councils.  Its  membership  is  reported  as 
4,078,740. 

The  real  factors  in  the  conduct  of  the  Federation  are  the  conventions 
called  annually  on  the  second  Monday  of  November — between  election  and 
the  opening  of  Congress.  National  and  international  organizations  are 
represented  therein  by  one  delegate  for  approximately  every  4,000  members. 

The  officers  of  the  Federation  are  a  president,  eight  vice-presidents, 
a  secretary  and  a  treasurer,  each  elected  the  last  day  of  the  convention. 
All  elected  officers  must  be  members  of  unions  connected  with  the  Federa- 
tion. The  responsible  administrative  work  rests  with  the  Executive  Coun- 
cil, composed  of  the  eleven  officers.  The  council  watches  legislative 
measures,  initiates  legislation,  schedules  speakers  and  performs  many 
necessary  administrative  tasks. 

National  and  international  unions  must  pay  to  the  Federation  two- 
thirds  of  one  cent  per  member  per  month ;  local  trade  unions  and  federal 
trade  unions,  ten  cents,  five  cents  of  which  must  be  set  aside  for  strikes, 
etc.  State  and  Central  bodies  pay  $10  per  year.  All  national  unions 
are  supposed  to  instruct  their  locals  to  join  the  Central  labor  bodies 
and  state  organizations  in  their  vicinities.  Seven  wage  workers  of 
good  character  favorable  to  trade  unionism,  whose  trade  is  not  organized 


STRUCTURE   AND   FINANCES    OF   LABOR   UNIONS  25 

and  who  are  not  members  of  any  body  affiliated  with  the  Federation,  may 
form  a  local  body  to  be  known  as  a  "Federal  Labor  Union." 

The  State  Federations  look  after  legislation  in  their  respective  states 
and  urge  more  effective  organization  among  the  workers.  The  city 
councils — meeting  generally  once  a  week  and  composed  of  representatives 
from  the  various  locals  in  their  vicinity — look  after  the  general  organized 
labor  interests  of  their  respective  communities. 

The  Federation  also  possesses  five  departments  whose  objects  it  is 
to  get  various  unions  to  cooperate  for  mutual  advantage — the  Union 
Label,  the  Building  Trades,  the  Metal  Trades,  the  Railway  Employes  and 
the  Mining  Departments.  Each  department  after  its  establishment,  sup- 
ports itself  and  manages  its  own  affairs,  and  has  its  representatives 
at  the  meetings  of  the  Executive  Council. 

The  Building  Trades  Department,  organized  in  1908 — though  an 
evolution  from  a  similar  organization  formed  in  1903 — contains  most  of 
the  trades  engaged  in  building  and  the  Metal  Trades  those  in  the  metal 
industries.  The  Mining  Department  contains  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
Western  Federation  of  Miners,  Brotherhood  of  Steam  Shovel  and  Dredge- 
men,  Iron,  Steel  and  Tin  Workers  and  the  Machinists. 

Although  most  of  the  unions  connected  with  the  Federation  are 
trade  organizations,  there  are  a  few  individual  unions  including  the 
United  Mine  Workers,  the  Brewery  Workers  and  there  is  ever  more 
discussion  regarding  industrial  unionism  in  the  ranks  of  organized 
labor. 

A  Statement 

(From  "The  Union  Shop  and  its  Antithesis,"  by  the  President 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  page  8.  Compare  this  very 
general  statement  with  the  succeeding  views,  which  show  its 
inaccuracies.) 

Any  wage  worker  can  join  a  trade  union.  All  are  open,  wide  open 
to  all  wage-workers  qualified  at  the  occupation  organized.  They  pay 
an  entrance  fee  barely  sufficient  to  equalize  the  payments  of  unions' 
benevolent  benefits  and  current  cost  of  administration.  No  union  ever 
asks  a  non-unionist  to  pay  for  the  slightest  percentage  of  the  damage 
he  has  done  as  a  disruptionist.  It  is  literally  and  positively  true,  without 
evasion  or  equivocation,  that  trade  unions,  and  consequently  union  shops, 
are  open  for  all  wage-workers  whom  any  employer  would  possibly  con- 
template as  employes  who  would  be  kept  regularly  and  permanently 
in  his  employ. 

The  Facts 

(From  "Unemployment  and  American  Trade  Unions,"  by 
Dr.  D.  P.  Smelser.  Published  by  Johns  Hopkins  University, 
1919.  Pages  35  and  36.) 

In  view  of  the  existence  of  such  union  theories,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  a  great  number  of  unions  have  placed  restrictions  upon  the  admission 
of  workmen  to  their  organizations.  The  editor  of  the  Bridge  and 


26  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Structural  Iron  Workers'  Journal  has  stated  the  common  union  view  as 
follows : 

"As  a  general  proposition  with  us  we  appear  to  think  that  a  new 
applicant  means  another  person  to  apply  for  the  various  jobs." 

Not  all  of  the  unions  have  adopted  the  policy  of  limiting  their 
membership;  many  are  willing  to  receive  as  members  practically  all  who 
are  employed  at  the  trade.  But,  where  a  local  union  has  the  field 
sufficiently  organized  to  successfully  deal  with  the  employers,  very  little 
effort  is  made  to  secure  additional  members.  In  some  of  the  large  cities 
it  is  very  difficult  to  obtain  admission  to  a  building-trades  union.  In  such 
cases  it  is  felt  that  workmen  have  the  local  situation  so  well  in  hand 
that  the  presence  of  even  a  considerable  number  of  unorganized  work- 
men can  have  little  influence  in  their  dealings  with  the  employers. 

A  few  local  unions  in  various  trades  make  their  admission  fees  high 
as  a  barrier  to  deter  the  unorganized  from  joining.  Initiation  fees  of 
$50.00,  $75.00  and  even  $100.00  are  found  in  a  few  highly  organized  unions, 
and  this  amount  must  be  paid  before  the  workmen  are  given  their  work- 
ing cards.  Another  method  of  keeping  the  unorganized  out  of  the  union 
is  to  make  the  conditions  of  the  examination  such  that  it  is  very  difficult 
for  ordinary  workmen  to  pass  it.  The  New  York  local  union  of  Steam 
Fitters  limits  its  membership  by  this  method.  The  requirements  of  the 
examination  are  said  to  be  of  such  a  nature  that  a  majority  of  the  members 
of  the  union  could  not  pass  it.  Other  unions  have  gone  further  and 
have  absolutely  refused  to  consider  applications.,  While  this  is  a 
policy  of  only  two  or  three  national  unions,  it  is  practiced  in  a  great  number 
of  local  unions  of  various  trades.  These  local  unions  have  a  sufficient 
number  of  members  to  maintain  relations  with  the  employers  and  are 
extremely  reluctant  to  receive  any  new  members,  even  upon  application. 
A  still  greater  number  of  local  unions  do  not  make  any  serious  efforts 
to  organize  their  trade.  Thus,  a  business  agent  informed  the  writer 
that  he  made  no  effort  to  secure  new  members  and,  further,  that  he 
attempted  to  persuade  applicants  not  to  join  the  union  unless  work  was 
very  plentiful. 

The  union  apprenticeship  policies  are  dominated  by  the  same  ideas. 
The  unions  seek  to  perpetuate  the  custom  of  apprenticeship  with  its 
accompanying  rules,  primarily,  in  order  that  the  supply  of  labor  may  be 
regulated  and,  secondarily,  that  capable  workmen  may  be  produced. 
Although  there  is  no  desire  to  minimize  the  purpose  of  the  unions  to 
produce  efficient  workmen  by  the  system  of  apprenticeship,  it  is  obvious 
that  this  is  subordinate  to  the  desire  to  restrict  the  number  working 
at  the  trade.  

Initiation  Fees  in  Unions 

(From  .''Admissions  to  American  Trade  Unions,"  by  Dr.  F. 
E.  Wolfe,  Colby  College.  Published  by  Johns  Hopkins  University, 
1912.  Read  this  and  true  preceding  statement  and  compare  them 
with  the  preceding  utterances  of  the  President  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor.) 

An  incidental  requisite  for  admission  into  any  union  is  the  payment 
of  an  initiation  fee.  Usually  the  amount  is  small,  and  represents  only  a 


STRUCTURE   AND   FINANCES   OF  LABOR  UNIONS 27 

nominal  charge  for  the  privilege  of  membership.  But  the  power  to  fix 
a  charge  may  be  abused  and  become  prohibitory  to  prospective  mem- 
bers. Strong  local  unions  have  at  times  sought  to  exclude  workmen  by 
charging  a  high  admission  fee  in  order  to  monopolize  employment  for 
their  members.  A  few  national  unions  have  also  used  high  fees  appar- 
ently for  exclusive  purposes.  Thus  the  national  board  of  directors  of  the 
United  Hatters  have  fixed  the  fees  from  individual  applicants  at  sums 
varying  from  $26  to  $100.  In  1908  the  Print  Cutters  agreed  to  admit  two 
men  into  the  association  upon  payment  by  each  of  an  initiation  fee  of 
$200.  The  determination  of  the  initiation  fees  may  have,  therefore,  an 
important  influence  on  admission  policy.  The  majority  of  national  unions 
have  not  required  the  payment  of  high  fees,  but  many  of  them  have  regu- 
lated the  amount  of  such  fees  which  may  be  charged  by  the  local  unions. 

The  determination  of  fees  varies  in  different  unions;  some,  as  for 
example  the  Printers,  leave  the  matter  to  local  control.  A  second  large 
class,  represented  by  the  Carpenters'  United  Brotherhood,  the  Painters, 
Decorators  and  Paperhangers,  the  Pattern  Makers,  the  Elevator  Con- 
structors and  the  Plumbers  fix  only  a  minimum,  thus  interfering  least  with 
local  autonomy.  In  either  of  these  classes  the  local  unions  may  raise 
the  charge  at  their  discretion.  Thus,  while  the  minimum  for  initiation  into 
the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  is  $5,  the  fee  for  new  members 
in  the  Baltimore  district  is  $25.  The  Elevator  Constructors  require  a 
minimum  of  $25,  and  the  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  local  unions  have  imposed 
fees  of  $50.  The  Musicians  have  a  $5  minimum,  but  local  unions  on  occa- 
sion increase  the  charge  to  $75  and  $100.  In  a  few  instances  local  unions 
of  the  Bakery  and  Confectionery  Workers  impose  charges  of  $200  and 
$250.  In  case  no  restriction  is  placed  on  the  amount  of  the  initiation  fee 
and  no  appeal  may  be  taken  to  the  national  union,  a  local  union  may  thus 
hedge  itself  in  against  outsiders. 

Another  group  of  unions,  including  the  Cigar  Makers,  the  Iron  Mold- 
ers,  the  Granite  Cutters,  the  Stone  Cutters,  and  the  Bookbinders,  have 
prescribed  a  uniform  fee  for  all  localities.  This  method  secures  uniform- 
ity, and  restrains  the  use  of  increased  fees  by  a  local  union,  unless  the 
consent  of  the  national  authority  is  procured.  Some  unions,  such  as  the 
Bricklayers  and  Masons,  the  Bakery  and  Confectionery  Workers,  the 
United  Garment  Workers  and  the  Lake  Seamen,  fix  a  maximum  as  well 
as  a  minimum,  and  thus  secure  approximate  uniformity  in  the  fees 
charged  by  the  local  unions. 

High  special  fees  are  defended  on  several  grounds.  In  the  first 
place,  they  often  partake  of  the  nature  of  fines  imposed  on  recalcitrant, 
expelled  and  non-union  workmen.  Although  national  regulations  forbid 
these  fees  above  a  stated  sum,  an  additional  amount  in  the  nature  of  fines 
may  be  charged  by  the  local  "unions,  and  must  be  paid  for  admission. 
The  effect  of  this  is  merely  to  increase  the  fee.  Many  unions  provide 
by  this  means  for  increased  fees  from  "anti-unionists"  or  "oppositionists." 
Thus  the  Bricklayers  and  Masons  permit  the  local  unions  to  impose  only 
$10  as  an  initiation  fee,  but  provide  for  the  imposition  of  penalties  rang- 
ing from  $25  to  $1,000  upon  either  former  members  or  non-unionists  who 
have  worked  against  the  union.  The  Marble  Workers  impose  a  special 


28  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

fee  of  $50  in  addition  to  the  regular  fee  upon  non-members  who  knc 
ingly  work  on  unfair  jobs.  The  Pattern  Makers  provide  that  the  exe« 
tive  committee  of  the  local  union  may  recommend  such  "cost  of  adir 
siori  as  it  deems  justified  by  the  facts  when  the  record  of  a  candid 
shows  persistent  defiance  of  and  antagonism  of  the  League." 

A  universal  condition  of  admission  to  any  union  is  the  payment 
an  initiation  fee.  Usually  the  amount  is  small,  and  is  not  sufficient  to  d 
courage  prospective  members ;  certain  unions,  however,  demand  higl 
initiation  fees  of  immigrants  than  of  other  applicants.  High  and  in  so 
case  prohibitive  initiation  fees  have  been  for  a  number  of  years  impoj 
on  this  class  of  workmen  by  the  Flint  Glass  Workers,  the  Table  Kn 
Grinders,  the  Pen  and  Pocket  Knife  Blade  Grinders,  the  Window  Gl: 
Workers,  the  Stone  Cutters,  the  Granite  Cutters,  the  Wire  Weavers,  1 
Glass  Bottle  Blowers,  the  Lace  Operatives,  the  Lithographers,  the  Pr 
Cutters,  the  Brewery  Workers,  and  the  Sanitary  Potters.  It  was  pi 
vided  in  1887  by  the  Flint  Glass  Workers  that  "all  foreigners  be  tax 
one  hundred  dollars  as  an  intiation  fee;"  in  1904  the  charge  was  reduc 
to  $10.  This  amount  is  now  the  minimum  special  fee  required  of  imr 
grants.  In  1892  the  Window  Glass  Workers  fixed  a  few  for  "foreignei 
at  $200,  in  1895  at  $500,  and  in  1904,  at  $300.  But  since  1907  the  natioi 
executive  board  has  been  empowered  to  determine  the  charge  for  ea 
individual  case.  The  Wire  Weavers,  since  1895,  and  the  Glass  Bot 
Blowers,  since  1903,  have  charged  immigrant  applicants  $500.  This 
the  highest  regular  fee  imposed  upon  an  applicant  in  any  American  tra 
union. 

National  trade  unions  ordinarily  prescribed  a  minimum  initiation  i 
for  all  applicants,  but  they  often  reserve  to  local  unions  the  right 
increase  the  fee  for  special  cases.  In  the  port  cities  of  the  United  Stat 
the  local  unions  in  some  trades  have  exercised  this  right  by  imposi 
higher  fees  on  immigrants.  Local  unions  of  the  Musicians,  the  Plastere 
and  the  Pattern  Makers  thus  impose  special  fees  in  addition  to  the  mil 
mum  fixed  by  the  national  union. 

The  imposition  of  a  special  admission  charge  in  many  instances  m 
have  no  other  purpose  than  to  secure  payment  for  advantages  and  pri^ 
leges  which  would  otherwise  be  procured  without  adequate  contribute 
from  the  prospective  member.  But  the  excessive  fees  required  by  t 
Glass  Bottle  Blowers,  the  Window  Glass  Workers,  the  Knife  Grinders,  t 
Print  Cutters,  the  Lace  Operatives,  and  the  Wire  Weavers  are  acknov 
edged  to  be  for  the  purposes  of  exclusion.  The  five-hundred-dollar  f 
of  the  Wire  Weavers  is  maintained  as  a  prohibitive  tariff  to  keep  o 
weavers  from  England  and  Scotland.  The  last  foreign  weavers  we 
admitted  in  1906.  The  Glass  Bottle  Blowers  have  desired  particularly 
protect  the  trade  against  glass  blowers  from  Sweden  and  Germany.  > 
immigrant  applicants  have  been  admitted  for  several  years,  and  for  thr 
years  none  have  applied.-  In  1908,  the  Lace  Operatives  increased  the  f 
for  immigrants  to  discourage  skilled  workmen  from  migrating  to  th 
country.  Local  unions  of  the  Stone  Cutters,  the  Granite  Cutters  ai 
other  trades  openly  seek  protection  against  the  competition  of  foreij 
workmen  by  the  use  of  special  high  fees. 


TRADE-UNION   DEVELOPMENT   IN    BRIEF  29 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Trade  Union  Development  in  Brief 
Forms  of  Organizations 

(From  an  article  by  George  E.  Barnett,  Professor  of  Eco- 
nomics at  Johns  Hopkins  University,  in  the  Quarterly  Journal  of 
Economics,  May,  1913.) 

Trade  unionists  in  all  industrial  countries  have  developed  a  number 
of  distinct  forms  of  grouping.  At  the  present  time,  for  example,  Amer- 
ican trade  unionists  are  organized  into  local  trade  unions,  national  trade 
unions,  city  federations,  a  national  federation,  local  trades  councils  and 
national  trades  councils.  The  same  unionist  may  be  included  in  all  of 
these  six  forms  of  grouping.  A  Baltimore  printer,  for  example,  may 
be  a  member  of  the  local  union  of  his  trade — the  Baltimore  Typographical 
Union;  of  the  national  union  of  his  trade — the  International  Typographical 
Union ;  of  the  city  federation — the  Baltimore  Federation  of  Labor ;  of 
a  national  federation — the  American  Federation  of  Labor;  of  a  local 
trades  council — the  Baltimore  Allied  Printing  Trades  Council,  and  finally, 
of  a  national  trades  council — the  International  Allied  Printing  Trades  Asso- 
ciation. Each  of  these  forms  of  grouping  might,  therefore,  embrace 
all  the  trade  unionists  in  the  United  States.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  some 
of  them  include  in  their  membership  only  a  small  part  of  the  total  number 
of  trade  unionists.  The  number  of  members  of  all  the  local  trades 
councils  in  the  United  States,  for  example  is  probably  less  than  one- 
fourth  of  the  total  number  of  trade  unionists. 

The  forms  of  trade-union  grouping  have  steadily  increased  in  number. 
The  local  trade  union  dates  its  origin  from  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century;  the  city  federation  from  1827;  the  national  trade  union, 
as  an  effective  form  of  organization,  from  1850.  Trades  councils,  local 
and  national,  are  a  development  of  the  last  twenty-five  years. 

The  inter-relations  of  these  forms  of  grouping — the  elements  in 
American  labor  organization — have  been  determined  slowly,  and  from  time 
to  time  the  changing  needs  of  the  trade-union  movement  have  necessi- 
tated readjustments  of  these  relations.  As  might  be  expected  from  the 
political  analogy,  the  relationship  which  has  proved  most  practicable  has 
been  the  dominance  of  some  one  of  the  forms  of  grouping  over  the  others. 
Whenever  the  tide  of  trade  unionism  has  risen  markedly,  the  desire  to 
give  unity  to  the  labor  movement  has  led  to  the  assumption  of  leader- 
ship and  control  by  one  or  another  of  the  forms  of  grouping.  In  the 
history  of  American  labor  organization,  four  distinct  structural  forms  are 
distinguishable,  each  of  which  emerges  in  a  time  of  rapid  growth  in  the 
trade-union  movement.  The  periods  in  the  development  of  the  structure 
of  American  labor  organization  may  accordingly  be  roughly  defined  as 
extending  from  1800  to  1815,  from  1827  to  1838,  from  1879  to  1888,  and 
from  1897  to  the  present.  In  the  years  between  these  periods  the  labor 
movement  was  relatively  weak  and  the  relations  of  the  various  forms  of 
grouping  were  less  sharply  defined. 


3O  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

In  the  earliest  period — from  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  tc 
about  1815 — the  local  union  was  the  only  form  of  trade-union  grouping 
Among  the  local  unions  of  the  different  trades  in  the  same  city  there  was 
no  substantial  connection. 

The  second  period,  extending  from  1827  to  1838,  was  marked  by  the 
rise  of  the  city  federation  or,  as  it  was  then  called,  the  trades'  union, 
The  admirable  study  of  this  period  by  Professor  Commons  and  Miss 
Sumner  shows  that  the  labor  movement  of  the  period  was  largely  directed 
and  controlled  by  the  city  federations.  Attempts  to  form  national  trade 
unions  were  made,  but  failed.  The  city  federation  united  to  form  a 
national  federation,  the  National  Trades  Union,  but  this  exercised  prac- 
tically no  power  and  its  life  was  short. 

A  characteristic  feature  of  American  trade  unionism  from  1865  to 
1888  was  the  formation  of  a  number  of  the  national  federations  in  which 
the  controlling  elements  were  the  city  federation,  and,  to  a  less  extent, 
the  local  union.  The  International  Industrial  Assembly  of  North  Amer- 
ica, organized  in  1864,  the  National  Labor  Union,  active  from  1866  to 
1870,  the  Industrial  Congress,  organized  in  1873,  and  the  Knights 
of  Labor,  organized  as  a  national  federation  in  1878,  were  alike 
in  this  respect.  These  national  federations  were  designed  to  exercise 
functions  distinct  from  those  exercised  by  the  .national  and  local 
unions,  but  the  evident  desirability  of  bringing  the  entire  labor 
movement  into  unity  led  in  the  latest  and  strongest  of  these  organiza- 
tions, the  Knights  of  Labor,  to  the  gradual  development  of  the  idea 
that  the  national  federation  should  be  dominant  in  the  structure  of  labor 
organization.  The  opposition  of  the  national  trade  unions  to  a  structural 
form  in  which  the  national  union  became  subordinate  to  the  national 
federation  led  to  the  bitter  struggle  between  the  Knights  and  the  national 
unions  which  characterized  the  years  from  1885  to  1888. 

The  fourth  period  in  the  structural  history  of  American  trade  union- 
ism— from  1897  to  the  present — has  been  distinguished  by  the  increasing 
control  exercised  by  the  national  trade  union  over  the  other  forms  of 
grouping.  This  development,  which  forms  the  subject  of  the  present 
paper,  will  be  treated  with  reference  to:  (i)  local  unions,  (2)  national 
federations,  (3)  city  federations,  (4)  local  and  national  allied  trades 
councils. 

The  number  of  national  unions  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  has  increased  steadily  since  1897.  In  1911  the  only  important 
national  unions  not  in  affiliation  with  the  Federation  were  the  Locomo- 
tive Engineer's,  the  Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen,  the  Railroad 
Trainmen,  the  Railway  Conductors,  the  Flint  Glass  Workers,  and  the 
Brick-layers  and  Masons.  The  total  membership  of  the  non-affiliated 
unions  in  1911,  at  a  liberal  estimate,  did  not  exceed  600,000,  while  the 
membership  of  the  affiliated  unions  was  approximately  1,800,000. 

No  rival  national  federation  has  been  able  in  this  period  to  offer 
effective  competition.  The  Knights  of  Labor  has  been  practically  an 
extinct  organization.  The  American  Labor  Union,  organized  in  1902  to 
promote  industrial  unionism,  went  out  of  existence  in  1905.  The  Indus- 
trial Workers  of  the  World,  organized  in  1905  as  the  successor  of  the 


TRADE-UNION   DEVELOPMENT   IN    BRIEF  31 

American  Labor  Union,  lost  in  1907  the  support  of  its  only  important 
national  union,  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  which  affiliated  in 
1911  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Extent  of  Trade  Unionism 

(From  an  article  on  "The  Extent  of  Trade  Unionism,"  by 
Dr.  Leo  Wolman,  of  the  University  of  Michigan,  1917.  Dr. 
Wolman's  estimates  as  to  the  extent  of  trade  unionism  in  trades, 
considered  highly  "organizable"  by  "labor  leaders,"  are  the  most 
liberal,  probably,  which  have  been  made.  They  may  be  said  to 
represent  the  extreme  claims  of  the  closed  shop  advocates,  and 
show  that  81.6  per  cent  of  the  workers,  only  certain  trades  con- 
sidered "organizable"  being  included,  are  not  members  of  trade 
unions.) 

The  total  membership  of  trade  unions  in  the  United  States  in  1910 
was  2,116,317;  in  the  same  year  the  total  number  of  persons  gainfully 
engaged  in  industry  in  this  country  was  38,134,712.  The  members  of  trade 
unions,  therefore,  constituted  in  the  last  census  year  5.5  per  cent  of  the 
industrial  population  of  the  United  States.  This  percentage,  however, 
appreciably  underestimates  the  strength  of  the  trade  union  movement 
because  of  the  inclusion,  in  the  aggregate  of  persons  "gainfully  engaged" 
in  industry,  of  members  of  the  employing  and  salaried  classes.  By  com- 
bining those  groups  of  industry  that  are  composed  of  members  of  the 
employing,  salaried,  and  fee-receiving  classes,  such  as  merchants,  man- 
agers, and  clergymen,  a  total  for  this  group  of  10,939,808  is  obtained. 
Accordingly,  the  wage  earning  class  in  1910  can  be  said  to  have  numbered 
27,194,904  persons;  and  of  this  number  7.7  per  cent  were  members  of 
labor  organizations.  Adherents  of  the  labor  movement  would  still  main- 
tain that  this  last  index  based  upon  a  group  that  includes  such  wage 
earners  as  agricultural  laborers  and  domestic  servants,  was  not  fairly 
indicative  of  the  actual  strength  and  extent  of  trade  unionism.  They 
would  use  as  a  basis  for  the  calculation  of  the  percentage  of  organiza- 
tion that  group  of  wage  earners  which  the  trade  union  makes  definite 
and  sustained  efforts  to  organize.  Since  no  such  efforts  have  been  made, 
until  the  present  at  least,  to  organize  agricultural  laborers  and  domestic 
servants,  because  of  their  conditions  of  individual  isolation,  and  similarly 
because  the  social  and  economic  status  of  such  employes  as  clerks  and 
stenographers  precludes  any  large  extension  in  organization  among  that 
class  of  workers,  it  is  contended  that  a  fair  estimate  of  the  extent  of 
labor  organization  can  be  based  upon  a  group  in  which  these  classes 
are  not  included.  Furthermore,  practically  every  trade  union  maintains 
an.  age  limit  below  which  it  will  not  admit  workmen  in  the  .industry 
into  membership  in  the  union.  The  average  lower  age  limit  for  all  trade 
unions  may  be  roughly  stated  at  twenty  years.  When  all  persons  engaged 
in  industry  as  agricultural  laborers,  in  domestic  and  personal  service,  in 
such  occupations  as  stenographers  and  saleswomen,  and  also  persons 
below  the  age  of  twenty  be  combined  and  the  total  for  this  group  be 
deducted  from  the  27,000,000  wage-earners  in  the  United  States  in  1910 
a  resulting  group  of,  11,490,944  persons,  who  may  be  characterized  as 


32  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

constituting  a  potential  trade  union  membership  is  obtained.  And  wi 
this  class  as  a  basis  the  degree  of  organization  is  found  to  be  18.4  p 
cent.  Accordingly,  the  most  conservative  survey  of  the  situation  wou 
indicate  that  in  the  United  States  in  1910,  92.3  per  cent  of  the  wag 
earners  were  unorganized;  whereas  the  most  liberal  estim .  ,s  wou 
show  that  81.6  per  cent  of  those  persons  who  are  susceptible  of  orga 
ization  were  without  the  trade  unions. 


An  Analysis  of  the  Labor  Movement 

(An  editorial  on  the  "Past,  Present  and  Future  of  Organize 
Labor"  in  the  National  Labor  Digest,  November,  1920.) 

Long  ago  Labor  was  about  the  cheapest  commodity  in  the  worl< 
It  was  unjustly  regarded  as  a  distinct  class  of  the  lower  order,  entirel 
beneath  notice,  except  as  the  needs  of  the  moment  required  its  service 
The  laboring  man  and  his  family,  generally  speaking,  lived  in  the  ram 
shackle  houses  and  shanties  of  the  unimproved  outskirts  of  any  community 
or  in  densely  populated,  unhealthy  tenement  houses.  In  very  many  locali 
ties  workers  were  half  fed,  half  clothed,  and,  at  not  infrequent  time.' 
enabled  to  live  only  through  the  charity  of  the  community.  It  is  no 
beyond  the  memory  of  the  present  generation  when  ordinary  labor  wa 
paid  50  and  75  cents  and  $1.00  per  day  and  the  man  was  lucky  who  sue 
ceeded  in  getting  in  200  days'  work  during  a  year. 

It  was  due  to  abuses  that  the  organized  labor  movement  was  con 
ceived.  It  was  not  founded  so  much  on  an  "ideal,"  as  on  a  genuine  neces 
sity  and  it  adopted  the  only  means  of  progress  at  its  disposal  at  thai 
time.  The  philosophy  of  the  movement  dealt  only  with  the  "rights"  oi 
labor,  practically  ignoring  obligations.  Its  followers  endeavored  to  achieve 
almost  wholly  by  force.  They  assumed,  and  not  without  cause,  that  the 
world  was  arrayed  against  any  movement  to  better  the  condition  of  those 
who  labored.  They  knew  they  had  to  fight.  Founded  in  this  spirit, 
scattered  organizations  of  workers  grew  up  and  fought  many  hard  battles 
in  the  effort  to  improve  their  lot.  In  this  same  belligerent  spirit  the 
crusaders  have  continued  their  march,  leaving  their  impress  on 
every  decade  through  which  they  have  passed.  The  unpleasant  details 
of  the  struggles  can  be  passed  over.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  the  move- 
ment was  prosecuted  with  vigor  and  that  it  finally  compelled  society  to 
recognize  the  human  element  in  industry,  resulting  in  the  development  of 
the  self-respecting  workers  of  the  present  day.  *  *  * 

In  its  earlier  efforts,  when  it  was  but  an  infant  and  irresponsible, 
organized  labor  had  little  and  could  afford  to  risk  all  on  a  chance  play. 
Generally  speaking,  it  advanced — chiefly  by  force.  Then,  gradually,  there 
came  a  different  day.  It  had  progressed  to  a  point  where  it  ceased  to  be 
but  an  incident  in  the  nation's  affairs.  During  the  Great  War,  and  imme- 
diately after,  it  attained  its  greatest  height  in  history.  More  industries 
recognized  its  principles,  and  it  received  better  pay,  than  it  had  ever 
known  before.  It  had  every  opportunity  to  prove  to  the  world  the  genuine 
worth  of  organization.  It  might  have  made  a  solid  place  for  itself  at 
the  council  table  with  capital.  With  capital  it  might  have  discussed  the 


TRADE-UNION  DEVELOPMENT  IN  BRIEF  33 

advisability  of  that  and  the  possibility  of  this,  wherever  "that"  and  "this" 
were  questions  bearing  on  the  workers'  welfare,  and  had  its  say  in  finally 
determining  such  questions.  It  was  in  a  position  to  make  legitimate,  rea- 
sonable demands  for  a  vast  army  of  workers  and  to  have  those  demands 
recognized.  Organized  labor  had  achieved  much,  consequently  it  had 
much  to  lose — it  could  no  longer  afford  to  be  the  reckless  gambler.  But 
it  would  be  absurd  to  pretend  that  it  had  not  finally  ventured  forth  once 
too  often  on  the  uncertain  power  of  force. 

Organized  labor  gambled  away,  in  a  short  while,  much  of  its  gains  of 
years.  It  tossed  away  the  most  valuable  opportunities.  Strike  after 
strike— little  nagging  strikes  and  big  strikes— and  violations  of  agreements 
were  the  principal  means  used  to  disrupt  its  own  house.  Curtailment  of 
production— slacking  on  the  job — along  with  demands  for  higher  and 
higher  wages  was  another  effective  method  used  to  further  opposition  to 
itself  and  cancel  its  gains.  It  was  slow  to  condemn  the  destructionists 
within  its  own  ranks,  there  to  disrupt  every  sound  relation  between 
employer  and  employe  wherever  found.  It  housed  the  Fosters  and  the 
Fitzpatricks.  It  gave  such  men  equal  rights  in  its  council  halls  with  men 
working  honestly  in  behalf  of  honest  men.  It  allowed  the  rule-or-ruin 
radicals  to  mold  its  reputation.  Some  leaders  and  many  bodies  felt  it 
their  duty  to  indorse  every  radical  or  vicious  activity  that  any  one  started. 
Some  even  went  so  far  as  to  indorse  the  recent  "outlaw"  rail  strike  and 
to  vote  funds  to  further  it  in  opposition  to  the  Brotherhood's  wishes  and 
every  honest  union  principle. 

Great  Responsibilities  Have  Been  Badly  Managed 

Altogether  too  frequently  have  labor  bodies  been  led  by  men  with 
vision  narrowed  down  until  they  could  see  only  their  own  selfish,  and, 
at  times,  dishonest  ends.  Too  often  have  workers  been  led  and  repre- 
sented by  men  utterly  unable  to  reason  beyond  the  logic  of  "we  want  it 
because  we  want  it."  Too  often  have  such  men  endeavored  to  carry  their 
point  by  mere  bluff  in  lieu  of  sound  facts.  Too  readily  have  they  called 
strikes,  too  readily  have  they  countenanced  violence,  too  readily  have 
they  sacrificed  other  men's  employment  and  risked  their  all  over  some 
trivial  matter  that  a  more  capable,  responsible  leader  would  have  adjusted 
with  few  words.  Organized  labor  dealt  carelessly  with  its  great  oppor- 
tunity. It  failed  to  make  industry  and  society  in  general  see  in  it  some- 
thing they  could  not  get  along  without.  This  has  all  been  a  great  mis- 
take. It  was  bad  management  of  a  great  responsibility. 

With  their  great  appreciation  of  power,  employers  over  the  country 
marveled  at  labor's  careless  abuse  of  so  much  which  it  had  gained.  Friends 
of  labor  stood  back  and  shuddered  as  they  watched  the  radicals — the  van- 
dals— undermining  the  house  of  the  workers,  while  there  was  not  a 
process  or  hand  of  authority  in  all  the  great  labor  scheme  to  check  them 
in  their  mad  careers.  There  is  hardly  a  good  citizen  who  does -not  regret 
the  misuse  and  abuse  to  which  organized  labor's  possessions  were  sub- 
jected in  its  hour  of  greatest  influence.  *  *  * 

To-day  the  voice  of  organized  labor  is  heard  echoing  across  the  land 
in  protest  against  the  progress  of  a  great  open  shop  movement.  Tlbe  cry 


34  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

which  is  heard  is  not  without  cause,  for  much  of  labor's  influence  ai 
power  have  been  shorn  and  its  future  is  uncertain.  % 

More  than  a  million  men  are  to-day  out  of  employment  and  the  pro 
pect  is  that  many  more  will  be  idle  within  a  short  time.  Many  of  the 
are  union  men  who  feel  that  their  organization  should  have  kept  itse 
in  a  position  where  it  could  have  been  of  help  to  them — that  it  shou 
have  known  better  the  waters  it  sailed — that  it  should  have  steered 
saner,  broader  course — that  it  should  have  chosen  the  calmer,  safer  cha: 
nels  instead  of  the  dangerous  rapids. 

Men  in  need  of  work  or  money  think  lightly  of  past  achievemen 
and  little  of  promises  for  the  future.  To-day  is  their  time  of  nee 
In  time  of  plenty  there  is  little  need  for  help.  In  time  of  scarcity  any  he 
is  welcome.  In  a  time  like  the  present  organized  labor  could  have  be( 
of  inestimable  benefit  to  its  members  had  it  guarded  the  place  it  so  recent 
held.  While  it  could  not  have  avoided  a  measure  of  unemployment,  an 
in  some  cases,  wage  reductions  during  the  readjustment,  it  could  ha1 
protected  its  members  by  joining  with  employers  in  meeting  the  proble 
— in  planning  the  distribution  of  men  and  work  during  the  inevitab 
unemployment  period.  In  that  way  all  could  have  shared  in  such  woi 
as  existed  and  all  could  have  weathered  the  storm  with  a  minimum  of  wai 
and  suffering. 

Organized  Labor  Has  Abused  Its  Opportunities 

The  present  state  of  organized  labor  has  come  about,  not  becau: 
organization  was  wrong,  not  because  it  did  not  have  opportunities,  bi 
because  it  abused  its  opportunities,  because  methods  were  wrong,  syste: 
and  control  were  lacking,  reason  was  permitted  to  run  unchecked,  an 
union  labor  force  failed  to  credit  any  possibility  of  equal  or  superic 
strength  to  other  forces  it  was  sure  to  encounter. 

Labor  is  confident  that  it  will  return  to  power  with  renewed  li: 
when  industry  again  gets  into  full  swing,  but  many  sound  thinkers,  : 
the  ranks  of  both  labor  and  capital,  are  convinced  that  it  can  nev< 
return  on  the  basis  of  its  old  policies.  Most  of  those  policies  ha\ 
been  in  force  the  movement's  inception  and  have  outworn  the  usi 
fulness  they  possessed  in  an  age  that  has  passed. 

Now  organized  labor  must  make  its  way  back  step  by  step.  That 
will  eventually  get  back  to  a  place  of  power,  there  is  no  denying.  Ho 
long  it  will  retain  or  how  it  will  manage  its  power  on  its  next  ascensioi 
are  the  questions.  If  it  is  to  attain  a  worth-while,  enduring  position, 
must  start  at  once  to  assume  the  full  responsbilities  that  intertwine  tr 
advantages  it  has  secured.  It  must  not  only  broaden  its  philosophy,  an 
base  its  policies  on  sound  facts,  but  it  must  develop  a  constructive,  ration; 
form  of  co-operation  with  all  other  factors  to  the  social  service  it  render 
It  must  base  its  hope  and  promise  for  future  success  upon  methods  th; 
will  stand  the  closest  scrutiny,  and  upon  a  full  regard  and  consideratio 
for,  and  usefulness  to,  all  other  legitimate  elements  of  society. 

From  now  on  labor  will  be  wise  to  place  less  confidence  in  artifici; 
economic  pressure.  It  will  be  wise  to  remember  that  there  is  a  lim 
beyond  which  it  is  dangerous  to  press  demands.  It  will  be  wise  to  remen 


TRADE-UNION  DEVELOPMENT  IN   BRIEF  35 

her  that  the  law  of  supply  and  demand,  coupled  with  living  costs,  will 
always  be  the  predominant  force  in  determining  wages — this,  in  spite 
of  anything  organized  labor  or  organized  capital  can  do  to  prevent  it. 
It  will  be  wise  to  cooperate  with  industry  in  meeting  many  problems 
in  which  it  is  directly  interested,  prepared  to  give  and  take  as  just  occasion 
demands. 

If  organized  labor  is  to  control  workers  and  have  an  effective  way  in 
the  working  conditions  of  the  country,  it  must  make  the  fact  of  its  being 
organized  mean  something  to  the  employer  and  the  public  as  well  as  to 
its  own  members.  It  must  prove  itself  not  only  just,  reasonable  and 
capable,  but  an  institution  of  value  to  workers,  employers,  and  the  public. 
This  can  be  accomplished  only  through  the  high  quality  of  the  service 
which  it,  an  organization,  can  prove  its  ability  to  render  to  society  at  large. 

In  its  efforts  to  make  a  solid  place  for  itself  in  the  industrial  world, 
one  which  can  not  be  successfully  attacked,  organized  labor  must  have 
the  full  and  unreserved  support  of  its  members  in  its  cooperation  with 
industry.  If  union  men  are  to  be  at  a  premium  in  industry,  they  must 
make  themselves  worth  that  premium;  they  must  prove  to  the  employer 
and  the  world  that  they  are  better  workers,  from  the  standpoint  of  quality 
and  quantity  of  production,  because  of  union  affiliation.  Otherwise  organ- 
ization of  labor  will  be  simply  an  instrument  of  coercion  and  will  remain 
without  appeal  to  the  employer,  a  large  percentage  of  the  workers,  and 
the  public.  Antagonism  will  continue  to  exist. 

Unless  organized  labor  will  discard  fallacies  which  beset  its  position, 
it  must  stand  on  wobbly  legs  or,  perhaps,  topple  completely  over. 


36  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 


CHAPTER   V. 

Do  Open  Shop  Employers  Hire  Unionists? 

Will  Open  Shop  Success  Destroy  Unions? 

Can  Unions  Be  Made  Constructive? 

A  familiar  closed  shop  argument  is  that  the  "open  shop" 
is  really  a  "non-union"  shop,  in  which  union  members  will  not 
be  employed.  Yet  the  Seattle  Union  Record  of  December  15th, 
1920,  prints  a  statement  that  the  printing  trades  of  Seattle  are 
"open  shop  with  ninety  per  cent  union  men." 

The  International  Typographical  Union  in  its  1920  con- 
vention voted  171  to  79  against  a  proposition  to  revoke  the  card 
of  any  member  who  obtains  employment  in  an  open  shop.  This 
is  not  the  policy  of  most  of  the  closed  shop  unions;  but  it  indi- 
cates that  unionists  are  employed  in  open  shops.  Otherwise,  the 
question  would  not  have  been  advanced. 

The  metal  trades  employers  in  New  York  City  recently  estab- 
lished the  open  shop;  it  is  said  that  ninety  per  cent  of  the  men  now 
employed  are  union  members. 

Will  Not  Work  with  Non-Unionists 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Anton  Johannsen,  general  organizei 
of  the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  Joiners,  before 
the  Industrial  Relations  Commission,  at  Stockton,  August  25 
1914.  Page  4,800  of  the  record.  This  and  the  following  quota- 
tion show  that  many  open  shop  employers  have  no  union  workers 
because  union  rules  forbid  their  members  working  by  the  side 
of  independent  workers.) 

COMMISSIONER  COMMONS:  The  issue,  as  I  understood  it  to  be  state( 
a  while  ago,  was  in  regard  to  this  ultimatum  in  the  last  year.  If  yot 
will  notice  it,  they  insisted  that  the  agreements  that  have  been  proposec 
by  the  unions — that  they  should  only  be  union  men  who  were  employed 

MR.  JOHANNSEN:  Why,  certainly.  I  can't  speak  for  all  the  unions 
but  so  far  as  the  building  trades  are  concerned  we  refuse  to  work  witl 
non-union  men.  But  he  can  hire  all  the  non-union  men  he  wants;  but  i 
he  wants  our  services  he  will  have  to  employ  union  men. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  H.  W.  Dennett,  former  organize 
for  the  International  Typographical  Union,  before  the  Indus 
trial  Relations  Commission,  September  14,  1914.  Page  5,780  o 
the  record.) 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH  :  In  speaking  of  arbitration,  following  what  yo 
said  about  arbitration,  would  you  be  willing  to  arbitrate  the  question  o 
the  closed  shop;  that  is,  whether  you  would  have  the  closed  shop  or  not 

MR.   DENNETT:     I   would   not. 


Do  OPEN  SHOP  EMPLOYERS  HIRE  UNIONISTS? 37 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  in  1890  went  on  record 
(p.  42  of  the  convention  proceedings)  as  declaring  that  it  is  incon- 
sistent for  union  men  to  work  with  non-union  men. 


Organization  of  Office  Workers 

(Testimony  of  President  C.  H.  Markham  of  the  Illinois 
Central  Railroad  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission, 
April  7,  1915.  Page  9,705  of  the  record.  Reasons  for  opposing 
organization  of  certain  employes.) 

Before  proceeding  further  with  this  statement,  it  may  be  as  well  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  one  of  the  unions  involved  in  this  matter 
included  the  clerks.  It  has  never  been  the  policy  of  the  railroad  company 
to  recognize  a  labor  union  composed  of  clerks.  These  men  sustain  a  more 
or  less  confidential  relation  to  their  employers.  They  manifestly  stand  a 
class  by  themselves.  By  reason  of  the  nature  of  their  duties  they  are  much 
closer  to  the  railroad  officials  than  are  the  workmen  in  the  shops  or  the 
employes  on  the  trains.  It  must  be  admitted  by  every  fairminded  man 
that  if  these  clerks  join  the  unions  and  become  associated  with  organized 
labor  generally,  their  obligation  to  the  interests  of  the  company  would 
thereby  be  seriously  impaired.  The  opportunity  which  these  clerks  would 
necessarily  have  of  knowing  what  goes  on  in  the  general  offices  .of  the 
company  would  lead  to  endless  trouble  and  strife  between  the  officers  and 
the  employes.  Every  trivial  matter  would  be  reported  to  the  unions,  and 
there  would  be  no  such  thing  as  the  company  having  any  secrets  whatever 
relating  to  competitive  business,  negotiations  with  labor  unions,  or  the 
like,  from  its  employes.  It  was  therefore  not  considered  advisable  to 
recognize  the  right  of  the  clerks  to  organize  in  this  manner. 

Our  judgment  in  declining  to  recognize  a  union  of  the  clerks  was 
amply  vindicated  by  the  course  of  events  after  the  strike.  I  will  a  little 
later  show  that  at  Memphis,  New  Orleans  and  elsewhere,  the  business  of 
the  company  was  greatly  hindered  by  the  action  of  the  striking  clerks  in 
removing  and  concealing  records,  in  removing  cards  from  cars,  and  in 
exchanging  cards  on  cars  so  that  the  utmost  confusion  resulted  from  their 
action.  The  mix  up  caused  by  changing  the  cards  on  the  cars,  led  to  ship- 
ments going  astray,  to  great  delay  in  the  delivery  of  freight,  to  unneces- 
sary out-of-line  hauls,  and  to  the  payment  of  heavy  claims  based  on  the 
failure  to  deliver  goods  promptly,  or,  in  some  cases,  to  deliver  perishable 
goods  at  all. 

The  Open  Shop  and  Unions 

_It  is  frequently  asserted  that  if  open  shop  conditions  gener- 
ally  prevailed  labor  organizations  could  not  exist.    If  labor  organ- 

izations  can  maintain  their  existence  only  because  of  the  unfair 
closed  shop,  then  something  must  be  wrong  with  them.     But  as' 
a  matter  of  fact  open  shop  conditions  will  not  in  any  way  lessen 


38  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

the  possibilities  of  good  work  by  organizations  based  on  right 
principles  which  are  practiced  in  the  right  manner. 

It  is  being  claimed  to-day,  without  the  slightest  attempt  to 
substantiate  such  statements  by  facts,  that  employers  are  laying 
off  men  who  are  receiving  high  wages  so  that  they  can  be  re- 
employed  at  lower  wages  and  under  open  shop  conditions. 
Reports  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  and  the 
New  York  Industrial  Commission  indicate  that  up  to  Novem- 
ber 30,  1920,  the  wage  reductions  which  had  occured  were  not  so 
great  as  the!  decline  in  food  prices.  What  employer  is  going  to  lay 
off  men  and  stop  production  when  he  does  not  have  to?  Every 
firm  has  to  pay  interest  upon  its  investment,  which  includes 
the  cost  of  the  plant  and  machinery.  The  salaries  of  the  officers 
and  office  force  must  be  paid^  Expenses  such  as  ligntmg,  heat- 
ing and  insurance  must  be  paid.  Taxes  must  be  paid.  If  a  plant 
is  closed  for  a  month,  it  simply  means  that  expenses  keep  on 
j-unning  during  the  month;  that  it  will  have  to  operate  just  so 
much  longer  before  any  profit  can  be  shown.  Practically  every 
manufacturing  plant  or  mercantile  establishment,  which  is  oper- 
ated by  men  of  ability,  is  run  on  borrowed  capital ;  practically  all 
of  them  owp  thousands  of  dollars  to  the  banks.  If  they  are  idle 
their  profits  cease,  and  the  banks,  to  protect  themselves,  naturally 
begin  to  squeeze  and  curtail  their  loans.  No  business  will  remain 
idle  more  than  it  absolutely  has  to.  The  slightest  knowledge 
of  economic  laws  makes  this  clear.  Those  who  talk  of  a  gigantic 
plot  to  close  down  industry  and  bring  about  open  shop  conditions 
certainly  believe  the  public  is  gullible. 

+    This  is  the  view  taken  by  the  New  York  Times  in  a  recent 
editorial. 

"The  unemployment  of  capital  is  the  unemployment  of  labor.  Nothing 
pleases  the  capitalist  more  than  to  put  his  dollars  to  work,  and  he  cannot 
do  that  without  paying  wages.  Nothing  offends  the  economist  more  than 
the  unemployment  of  capital,  because  the  interest  unearned  to-day  cannot 
be  earned  to-morrow.  Charles  M.  Schwab  is  both  a  capitalist  and  a  master 
workman.  He  worked  his  dollars  hard,  and  is  an  easier  taskmaster  for 
others  than  for  himself.  His  grievance  against  the  tax  laws  which  oppress 
all  industry  is  not  that  they  part  him  from  his  money,  but  that  they  make 
capital  unproductive.  'Excessive  taxes  tend  toward  leveling,  but  it  is  level- 
ing downward,  because  the  supply  of  free  capital  arising  from  profits, 
instead  of  being  turned  back  into  industry,  is  turned  into  the  coffers  of 
the  Government  and  there  is  mostly  wasted/  Government  makes  no 
money,  and  pays  no  wages  in  productive  industry. 

"The  taxes  which  the  Government  takes  are  diverted  from  the  wage 
fund.  When  the  taxes  are  put  on  the  rich  the  poor  do  not  have  to  pay 


Do  OPEN  SHOP  EMPLOYERS  HIRE  UNIONISTS?  39 

them,  but  they  suffer  from  loss  of  wages  which  the  taxes  would  produce 
if  they  were  invested  capital.  If  there  is  to  be  any  surplus,  there  must  be 
production;  and  when  profits  and  production  stop  together  the  country 
suffers  from  loss  of  production,  just  as  labor  suffers  from  loss  of  wages. 
"It  is  remarkable  with  what  unthinking  gayety  labor  strikes  and 
sacrifices  wages.  It  is  even  more  remarkable  in  contrast  with  the  gloom 
with  which  capital  stops  production.  It  is  the  difference  between  ignorance 
and  knowledge,  between  theory  and  practice." 


No  Right  to  Dictate 

(From  pamphlet  No.  2,  February  15,  1920,  of  the  Associated 
Industries  of  Tacoma.) 

l"*  Organized  labor  leaders,  on  the  other  hand,  have  immediately  shown 
la  spirit  of  absolute  antagonism  to  all  efforts  of  the  employer  to  bring 

'about  a  better  understanding.  They  say  "the  plunderbunds"  of  capital 
seek  to  destroy  unionism,  lower  wages  and  living  conditions  and  enslave 
the  freeborn  American  workingman.  The  Associated  Industries,  they 
declare,  is  the  medium  through  which  labor  is  to  be  crushed. 

These  assertions  are  absolutely  false.  The  Associated  Industries  does 
not  seek  to  crush  organized  labor  as  such,  but  we  do  seek  to  nullify  the 
autocratic  power  of  dictation,  the  weapon  used  by  the  radical  leaders  of 
organized  labor  in  gaining  unreasonable  demands  which  slowly  but  surely 
leads  to  the  destruction  of  American  industry.  Through  this  same  auto- 
cratic power  the  individual  worker  is  denied  the  right  to  obtain  employ- 
ment, except  at  the  pleasure  r>f  the  union  leader.  Efficiency  is  destroyed, 
the  slothful  workman  is  protected  and  the  skilled  and  efficient  craftsman 
robbed  of  his  true  worth. 

We  believe  in  the  right  of  men  to  organize  for  their  own  protection, 
but  we  do  not  believe  in  their  right  to  dictate  to  other  workmen,  for  whom, 
for  what,  and  when,  they  shall  work.  Neither  do  we  believe  in  an  abso- 

I  lute  power  which  shall  dictate  to  the  employer  whom  he  shall  employ  and 

(jo  jyhat  extent. 

Theory  Versus  Facts 

(From  the  Industrial  Relationist,  published  by  the  Merchants 
and  Manufacturers  Association  of  Los  Angeles.) 

It  is  said  every  day  that  there  is  no  brief  against  organized  labor  as 
such.  What  does  that  mean? 

It  means  that  the  original  theory  of  trade  unionism  is  perfectly  right, 
proper  and  perhaps  even  benevolent,  but  we  are  not  facing  the  theory  of 
Labor  Unionism,  we  are  facing  facts,  and  the  facts  are  that  labor  unions, 
as  they  operate  to-day,  under  radical  domination,  are  a  menace  to  the 
integrity  of  this  country. 

Their  demands  are  too  frequently  unjust  and  impossible  to  grant 
because  they  are  economically  unsound,  or  prohibitive,  or  confiscatory,  or, 
as  is  often  the  case,  they  are  all  three  of  these  things. 

Too   many  labor  leaders   are   unscrupulous   or  ill-advised   men  who 


4Q  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

mislead  and  perform  many  acts  which  benefit  themselves  and  their  small 
radical  clique  most,  and  which  are  detrimental  to  the  entire  community, 
including  particularly  the  members  of  their  own  unions. 

Radical  labor  unionism  established  a  dead  line  of  inefficiency.  It  cur- 
tails production,  it  limits  the  ambitious,  helps  the  inefficient  and  lazy, 
obstructs  progress  and  accomplishes  sheer  mediocrity. 

Radical  labor  unionism  seeks  to  limit,  and  in  many  cases  does  limit, 
the  freedom  of  American  citizens.  Any  organization  which  says  in  effect, 
"Thou  shalt  not  work  without  the  permission  of  labor  unions,"  or  "Thou 
shalt  employ  no  man  without  the  permission  of  labor  unions,"  is  so  funda- 
mentally wrong  that  no  well-informed  person  can  subscribe  to  its  doctrines, 
and  least  of  all  can  labor  ultimately  afford  to  be  hampered  and  limited  in 
that  way. 

Radical  labor  unionism  seeks  to  compel,  to  coerce  and  to  force  unwill- 
ing men  to  do  its  bidding  by  threats  and  acts  which  are  relics  of  savagery, 
and  which  are  a  blot  upon  the  escutcheon  of  any  civilized  country. 

Radical  labor  unionism  feeds  the  flames  of  class  consciousness  which 
is  an  un-American  thing;  it  has  sought  minority  and  class  control  and 
has  even  sought  to  set  itself  above  the  government  of  the  United  States. 

Labor  unions  have  apparently  been  utiwittingly  used  as  a  vehicle  for 
destructive  programs  of  many  kinds. 

These  are  some  of  the  facts  which  were  not  part  of  the  original 
theory  of  trade  unions.  It  is  true  that  there  is  a  majority  of  conservative, 
wise  and  broad  visioned  men  in  organized  labor  who  would  like  to  see  the 
original  theories  replace  the  present  facts,  but  though  greater  in  numbers, 
their  counsel '  does  not  prevail,  and  until  such  sane  counsel  does  pre- 
vail, it  is  greatly  to  be  regretted  that  organized  labor  cannot  be  trusted. 


Destruction  Versus  Repair 

(From  the  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Com- 
mission, May  17,  1915,  of  Mr.  Walter  Drew,  Counsel  for  the 
National  Erectors'  Association.) 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  If  you  had  to  say,  Mr.  Drew,  whether 
organized  labor  in  its  present  capacity,  with  all  the  faults  that  you  have 
alleged  against  it,  with  all  its  weaknesses  and  ramifications,  would  you 
have  it  wiped  out  of  existence? 

MR.  DREW  :  Not  at  all,  Mr.  O'Connell ;  I  think  that  would  be  a  very 
foolish  thing  to  do.  You  may  plant  a  tree  out  in  your  back  yard,  and 
because  of  its  location  or  the  lack  of  proper  training  it  may  grow  to  be 
crooked.  That  does  not  mean  that  you  have  got  to  tear  the  tree  up  and 
throw  it  away. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  I  take  it  that  the  general  thought  you 
have  given  to  bring  your  mind  to  its  general  criticism  of  organized  labor 
that  you  must  have  given  some  thought  as  to  what  organized  labor  might 
be  and  how  it  should  conduct  itself  and  how  it  should  be  organized.  I 
am  sure  this  commission  would  and  I  would  be  intensely  interested  to 
have  your  opinion,  because  of  the  specialty  you  apparently  have  made  of 


Do  OPEN  SHOP  EMPLOYERS  HIRE  UNIONISTS? 41 

one  side  of  the  question,  as  to  whether  you  have  given  thought  to  the 
other  side. 

MR.  DREW:  Mr.  O'Connell,  I  am  a  firm  believer  in  the  organization 
of  workers,  I  am  a  firm  believer  in  collective  bargaining.  I  think  that 
nothing  more  effective  could  be  done  in  the  direction  of  realizing  both  of 
those  things  than  to  get  the  union  movement  of  to-day  back  to  bedrock — 
a  sound  economic  foundation;  to  think  a  little  more  of  the  plowshare  and 
perhaps  a  little  less  of  the  sword.  There  isn't  any  fair  argument  against 
a  laboring  man  using  his  power,  even  in  militant  methods,  using  your 
people  when  they  are  organized  with  all  the  discipline  of  soldiers  in  war. 
But  the  trouble  with  that  is  that  you  develop  class  consciousness,  accord- 
ing to  my  mind,  along  the  line  of  organization;  you  emphasize  the  strong 
arm  of  the  organization  so  much  that  the  man  forgets  his  own  duties 
and  responsibilities  and  strength  as  a  productive  factor  in  industry. 

Now,  I  have  read  through  the  different  trade  magazines  of  the  coun- 
try, including  the  Federationist,  and  I  do  not  find  a  word  from  cover  to 
cover  advising  the  workingmen  to  increase  their  efficiency  or  capacity  or 
to  co-operate  with  the  employer  in  securing  as  great  an  output  as  possible 
for  the  common  result  of  his  capital  and  their  labor. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  Probably  the  laborer  believes  there  are 
now  enough  engaged  in  that  work — 

MR.  DREW  (interrupting):  Well,  I  don't  know;  labor  is  the  one 
great  essential  to  production ;  and  if  the  laborer  limits  production  or  takes 
a  stand  that  limits  production  there  is  just  that  much  less  in  the  pot  for 
him  to  fight  for  a  share  of. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  I  understand  you  to  say,  Mr.  Drew,  that 
you  are  a  firm  believer  in  organization,  and  with  that  in  the  right  of  bar- 
gaining? 

MR.  DREW:  No  sane,  sensible  person  nowadays  objects  to  those  con- 
ceptions. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  And  you  agree  that  we  can  not  have  col- 
lective bargaining  without  organization? 

MR.  DREW:  Exactly;  exactly.  Therefore,  I  think  it  is  a  greater  pity 
that  the  ability  of  organized  labor  to  realize  its  proper  functions  as  a 
party  to  collective  agreements  should  be  so  handicapped  by  a  lot  of  these 
things  that  they  do. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  Well,  first,  how  are  we  going  to  have 
organization  with  the  opposition  of  employers,  who  employ  the  workmen, 
against  organization?  How,  then,  can  we  have  collective  bargaining? 

MR.  DREW:  Mr.  O'Connell,  if  you  will  go  through  the  great  national 
industries  of  to-day  that  are  upon  the  open  shop  basis,  you  will  find  that 
they  were  once  upon  a  closed  shop  basis.  Organized  labor  has  collective 
agreements;  had  collective  agreements  with  our  people;  they  had  collec- 
tive agreements  with  the  metal  trades  and  founders.  They  developed  the 
strength  to  secure  them  and  to  have  them  in  actual  operation.  Why  have 
they  lost  them?  I  think  that  is  a  very  pertinent  inquiry.  Why  are  indus- 
tries that  were  once  closed  shop  to-day  open  shop? 

COMMISSIONER   O'CONNELL:     I   think  the   answer   is   that   employers 


42  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

have  combined  for  the  purpose  of  declaring  for  what  they  called  the  open 
shop. 

MR.  DREW  :  But  why  did  they  do  that  if  the  agreement  with  organized 
labor  was  desirable,  was  right,  was  good  for  the  industry,  brought  about 
an  increase  of  output,  brought  about  peace  in  the  trade?  There  were  no 
questions  of  competition  among  these  men,  because  the  great  mass  of 
employers  in  these  industries  were  parties  to  those  agreements,  so  that  each 
manufacturer  was  competing  on  the  same  basis  with  others.  Why  did 
they  get  together  to  throw  off  the  control  of  the  closed  shop?  I  can  tell 
you  why  they  did  it  with  the  structural  iron  workers. 


Over  50  Per  Cent  in  Open  Shops 

(From  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commis- 
sion, June  26,  1914,  of  Mr.  John  Watt,  business  agent  of  the 
Pattern  Makers'  Association,  Philadalphia,  page  2,914,  of  the 
record.  Mr.  Watt  shows  that  over  half  of  the  membership  of  his 
union  are  employed  in  open  shops.) 

MR.  BUSIEK  :  How  many  pattern  makers  are  there  employed  here  in 
Philadelphia,  approximately? 

MR.  WATT:     Approximately  600.  •  .'fi 

MR.  BUSIEK:     And  how  strongly  are  you  organized? 

MR.  WATT:    About  70  per  cent. 

MR.  BUSIEK:     About  70  per  cent? 

MR.  WATT:     Yes. 

MR.  BUSIEK:     Have  you  any  closed  shops  in  Philadelphia? 

MR.  WATT:     Yes. 

MR.  BUSIEK  :     About  how  many  men  working  in  closed  shops  ? 

MR.  WATT:     Well,  there  are  about  200. 

MR.  BUSIEK:    About  200? 

MR.  WATT:     Yes. 

MR.  BUSIEK:    And  your  other  men  working  in  the  other  open  shops? 

MR.  WATT:     Yes,  sir. 


Constructive  Organization 

The  possibility  of  labor  organizations  which  will  be  beneficial 
both  to  the  workers  and  the  public  are  pointed  out  in  the  follow- 
ing: 

An  editorial  in  the  Weekly  Review  of  January  26,   1921, 

says: 

"Union  labor  leaders  constantly  have  as  their  objective  the  universal 
closed  shop.  They  regard  non-membership  in  a  union,  in  any  trade  in 
which  there  is  a  union,  as  treason  to  the  cause  of  labor.  The  attitude  is 
quite  intelligible.  But  there  is  no  reason  why  intelligent  persons,  looking 
at  the  matter  from  the  standpoint  of  the  general  public,  should  assent  to 
the  notion  that  the  labor  unions  must  be  either  everything  or  nothing.  A 
union  may  be  powerful  without  being  omnipotent.  If  it  succeeds  in  bring- 
ing into  its  organization  a  preponderating,  or  even  a  very  large,  body  of 


Do  OPEN  SHOP  EMPLOYERS  HIRE  UNIONISTS? 43 

the  workers  in  the  trade,  it  can  exercise  powerful  pressure  upon  employ- 
ers in  behalf  of  any  reasonable — and,  if  circumstances  favor  it,  even  of 
very  unreasonable — demands.  Yet  many  persons  see  no  distinction  be- 
tween opposition  to  the  closed-shop  principle  and  opposition  to  the  whole 
system  of  labor  organization.  They  do  not  stop  to  think  either  of  the 
large  possibilities  of  united  action  which  union  labor  can  avail  itself  of 
without  proscription  of  non-union  labor,  or  of  the  intolerable  situation 
which  would  arise  if 'such  proscription  were  complete.  In  that  situation, 
we  should  all  be  at  the  absolute  mercy  of  the  labor  unions ;  they  could  at 
any  moment  enforce  any  demand  they  might  think  fit  to  make  by  the 
threat  of  paralysis  of  the  whole  activities  of  the  community.  It  is  the 
privilege  of  the  members  of  a  union  to  refuse  to  work  alongside  of  any- 
body who  is  not  a  member  of  a  union;  and  if  the  union  is  sufficiently 
strong,  it  may,  by  making  use  of  this  privilege,  be  able  to %  compel .  any 
given  employer  to  accept  the  closed  shop  principle.  But  likewise  it  is  the 
privilege  of  any  employer  to  refuse  to  accept  that  principle.  Those  em- 
ployers who  are  doing  so,  and  who,  in  doing  so,  are  not  resorting  to 
measures  that  are  in  themselves  oppressive  or  unlawful,  are  fighting  a 
good  fight  for  us  all — a  fight  against  the  reduction  of  the  country,  to  a 
condition  of  subjection  to  arbitrary  class-rule." 


Efficiency  What  Is  Needed 

(From  "Latter  Day  Problems,"  by  J.  Laurence  Laughlin, 
Emeritus  Professor  of  Economics,  University  of  Chicago,,  pub- 
lished by  Charles  Scribner's  Sons.) 

In  contrast  with  the  existing  policy,  which  can  end  only  in  discourage- 
ment and  failure,  permit  me,  wholly  in  the  interest  of  the  membership  of 
the  unions,  to  suggest  another  policy  which  will  certainly  end  in  higher 
wages  and  open  a  road  to  permanent  progress  for  all  working  men. 
Instead  of  the  principle  of  monopoly  of  competitors,  I  offer  the  principle 
of  productivity  or  efficiency,  as  a  basis  on  which  the  action  of  unions 
should  be  founded. 

By  productivity  is  meant  the  practical  ability  to  add  to  the  product 
turned  out  in  any  industry.  The  relative  productivity  of  labor  operates 
on  its  price  just  as  does  utility  on  the  price  of  any  staple  article — improve 
the  quality  of  it  and  you  increase  the  demand  for  it.  This  general  truth 
is  nothing  new.  The  purchaser  of  a  horse  will  pay  more  for  a  good 
horse  than  for  a  poor  one.  A  coat  made  of  good  material  will  sell  for 
more  than  one  made  of  poor  material.  Why?  Because  it  yields  more 
utility,  or  satisfaction,  to  the  purchaser.  In  the  same  way,  if  the  utility 
of  the  labor  to  the  employer  is  increased,  it  will  be  more  desired;  that  is, 
if  the  laborer  yields  more  of  that  for  which  the  employer  hires  labor,  the 
employer  will  pay  more  for  it,  on  purely  commercial  grounds. 

Now  it  happens  that  where  productivity  is  low,  that  is  where  men  are 
generally  unskilled — the  supply  is  quite  beyond  the  demand  for  that  kind 
of  labor.  Productivity  being  given,  supply  regulates  the  price.  Obviously, 
to  escape  from  the  thraldom  of  an  over-supply  of  labor  in  any  given  class, 
or  occupation,  the  laborer  must  improve  his  efficiency.  That  is  another 


44  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

way  of  saying  that,  if  he  trains  himself  and  acquires  skill,  he  moves  up 
into  a  higher  and  less  crowded  class  of  labor.  The  effect  on  wages  is 
two-fold;  (i)  he  is  now  in  a  group  where  the  supply  is  relatively  less 
to  demand  than  before;  and  (2)  his  utility  as  a  laborer  to  the  employer 
is  greater,  and  acts  to  increase  the  demand  for  his  services.  Productivity, 
therefore,  is  the  one  sure  method  of  escape  from  the  depressing  effects 
on  wages  of  an  oversupply  of  labor. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  describe  in  detail  the  forms  by  which  productivity 
shows  itself  in  the  concrete.  If  the  laborer  is  a  teamster,  he  can  improve 
in  sobriety,  punctuality,  knowledge  of  horses,  skill  in  driving,  improved 
methods  of  loading  and  unloading,  avoidance  of  delays,  and  in  scrupulous 
honesty.  If,  moreover,  he  studies  his  employer's  business  and  consults 
his  interest — instead  of  studying  how  to  put  him  at  a  disadvantage,  or 
instead  of  making  work — he  still  further  increases  his  productivity  and 
value  to  his  employer.  In  other  occupations  and  in  other  grades  of  work 
the  process  is  simple.  In  fact,  it  is  the  ordinary  influence  of  skill  on 
wages;  and  men  have  been  acting  on  an  understanding  of  time  out  of 
mind. 

To  this  suggestion  it  may  be  objected  that  the  workman  who  makes 
himself  more  efficient  receives  no  more  from  an  employer  than  the  less 
efficient;  that  employers  treat  all  alike  and  are  unwilling  to  recognize 
skill.  The  fact  is  doubted;  for  it  is  incredible  that  intelligent  managers 
should  be  for  any  length  of  time  blind  to  their  own  self-interest.  But  if 
they  are  thus  blind,  and  if  they  place  an  obstacle  to  the  recognition  of 
merit  and  skill,  then  we  at  once  see  how  the  unions  can  make  legitimate 
use  of  their  organized  power  of  demanding  higher  wages  for  higher  pro- 
ductivity. Such  demands  are  sure  to  meet  with  success. 

This  method  of  raising  wages  based  on  forces  bringing  about  a 
lessened  supply  and  an  increased  demand,  shows  a  difference  as  wide  as 
the  poles  from  the  existing  artificial  method  of  "bucking"  against  an  over- 
supply  by  an  ineffective  monopoly.  To  the  laborer  who  wishes  higher 
wages  the  advantage  of  the  former  over  the  latter  is  so  evident  and  so 
great  that  further  illustration  or  emphasis  on  this  point  would  be  out  of 
place.  In  the  economic  history  of  the  last  fifty  or  sixty,  years  in  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  it  appears  that  money  wages  have  risen 
by  about  fifty  per  cent  for  unskilled  labor  to  over  one  hundred  per  cent 
for  higher  grades  of  work,  while  the  hours  of  labor  per  day  have  been 
lowered  considerably.  Moreover,  this  gain  in  money  wages  has  been 
accompanied  by  a  fall  in  the  prices  of  many  articles  consumed  by  the 
laboring  class.  This  fortunate  outcome  has  gone  on  simultaneously  with 
a  progress  in  invention  and  in  the  industrial  arts  never  before  equaled  in 
the  history  of  the  world,  and  it  is  a  progress  which  has  enabled  the  same 
labor  and  capital  to  turn  out  a  greater  number  of  units  of  product.  In 
fact,  the  enlargement  of  the  output  has  been  such  that  each  unit  could  be 
sold  at  a  lower  price  than  ever  before  and  yet  the  value  of  the  total  prod- 
uct of  the  industry  has  sufficed  to  pay  the  old  return  upon  capital  and  also 
to  pay  absolutely  higher  money  wages  to  the  workmen  for  a  less  number 
of  hours  of  labor  in  the  day.  Indeed,  one  is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  gain 
in  wages  by  the  working  classes  in  recent  years  has  been  due  far  more  to 


Do  OPEN  SHOP  EMPLOYERS  HIRE  UNIONISTS? 45 

this  increased  productivity  of  industry  and  much  less  to  the  demands  of 
labor  unions  than  has  been  generally  supposed.  The  productivity  method 
of  raising  wages  has  the  advantage  over  the  one  in  present  use  in  that  it 
gives  a  quid  pro  quo,  and  excites  no  antagonism  on  the  part  of  the 
employer.  A  pressure  by  strikes  to  have  productivity  recognized  must  be 
successful,  since  an  employer  cannot  afford  the  loss  consequent  on  hiring 
an  inefficient  workman.  The  insistence,  as  at  present,  on  a  uniform  mini- 
mum rate  of  wages  by  process  of  terrorism,  and  without  regard  to  the 
supply  of  possible  competitors,  cannot  for  a  moment  be  considered  in 
comparison  with  the  hopeful  and  successful  method  through  improved 
productivity.  The  one  is  outside,  the  other  within,  the  control  of  any 
individual  initiative. 

Why  Not  Require  Efficiency   and   Character  for  Union  Admission? 

Keeping  these  things  in  mind,  those  of  us  who  would  like  to  see  a 
definite  and  permanent  progress  of  the  laboring  classes  believe  that  here 
the  unions  have  a  great  opportunity.  They  must  drop  their  dogged  attempts 
to  enforce  a  policy  against  the  oversupply  of  labor  by  a  futile  monopoly; 
it  is  as  useless  and  hopeless  as  to  try  to  sweep  back  the  sea  with  a  broom. 
On  the  other  hand,  should  the  unions  demand  as  conditions  of  admission 
definite  tests  of  efficiency  and  character,  and  work  strenuously  to  raise 
the  level  of  their  productivity,  they  would  become  limited  bodies,  com- 
posed of  men  of  high  skill  and  efficiency.  The  difficulty  of  supply  would 
be  conquered.  -A  monopoly  would  be  created,  but  it  would  be  a  natural 
and  not  an  artificial  one.  The  distinction  between  union  and  non-union 
men  would,  then,  be  one  between  the  skilled  and  the  unskilled.  The  con- 
test between  union  and  non-union  men  would  no  longer  be  settled  by  force. 
Thus  the  sympathy  of  employers  and  the  public  would  be  transferred 
from  the  non-union,  or  the  unfit,  to  the  union,  or  the  fit  men.  If  space 
were  sufficient,  interesting  cases  could  be  cited  here  of  unions  which  have 
already  caught  sight  of  the  truth,  and  greatly  improved  their  position 
thereby.  This  policy  unmistakably  opens  the  path  of  hope  and  progress 
for  the  future. 

In  contrast  with  the  mistaken  policy  of  the  present,  we  may  set  down 
the  different  ways  in  which  productivity  wpuld  act  upon  the  four  evils 
enumerated  at  the  end  of  the  second  part  of  our  study: 

1.  The  wrong  to  the  non-union  man  would  disappear.    The  rivalry  of 
union  and  non-union  men  would  no  longer  be  the  competition  of  equals, 
because  the  non-union,  or  inferior  men  would  be  out  of  the  competition 
for  given  kinds  of  work.    There  is  no  wrong  to  a  non-union  man  if  he  is 
excluded  from  work  for  inefficiency.    The  wrong  of  to-day  is  that  the  union 
often  shields  numbers  of  incapables. 

2.  Since  the  unionists  would  represent   skill,   and  the  non-unionists 
lack  of  skill,  there  would  be  no  need  of  force  to  hold  the  position  of 
natural  monopoly.    The  perpetual  defiance  of  the  law  in  order  to  terrorize 
non-union  men  would  have  no  reason  for  its  existence;  and  the  worst 
phase  of  unionism  would  disappear.     Such  a  consummation  alone  would 
be  worth  infinite  pains;  but  if  it  should  come  in  connection  with  a  policy 
which  is  morally  certain  to  improve  the  condition  of  the  workmen,  not 
to  reach  out  for  it  is  little  short  of  crime. 


46  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

3.  As  another  consequence  of  the  new  principle  the  unionist  would 
find  himself  and  his  comrades  steadily  gaining  a  higher  standard  of  living 
without  resort  to  the  artificial  methods  of  politics.     Legislation  would  not 
be  needed  to  fight  against  the  results  of  the  oversupply  of  labor.     Like 
ordinary  businessmen,   the  unionists   would   find  their    affairs   peacefully 
settled  in  the  arena  of  industry  by  permanent  forces,  and  not  in  the  un- 
certain strife  of  legislatures  and  political  conventions,  in  which  they  are 
likely  to  be  outwitted  by  clever  party  leaders.     And  yet  the  workmen 
would  retain  in  their  organized  unions  the  power  to   command   justice 
from  those  employers  who  are  unjust. 

4.  The  new  policy  would  insure  community  of  interest  between  em- 
ployer and  employe.     This  objective  is  so  important,  it  has  been  so  out- 
rageously ignored  in  countless  labor  struggles,  that   to   attain  it  would 
almost  be  like  the  millennium;  and  yet,  instead  of  being  moonshine,  it  is 
simple  common  sense.    If  the  laborers  knew  and  acted  upon  the  fact  that 
skill  and  good-will  were  reasons  why  employers  could  pay  better  wages, 
the  whole  face  of  the  present  situation  would  be  changed.     If  it  were 
objected  that  the  unfair  and  grasping  employer  would  pocket  the  surplus 
due  to  the  improved   efficiency  of  the  laborer,   it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  unions  still  retain  their  power  of  collective  bargaining.     But,  of 
course,   the   unions   must   not   believe   that   demands    can   be   made    for 
advances  of  an  unlimited  kind  far  beyond  the  services  rendered  to  pro- 
duction of  any  one  agent,  such  as  labor. 

The  new  proposals  would  also  completely  remove  the  disastrous  ten- 
dency to  make  work.  If  men  obtain  payment  in  proportion  to  their  pro- 
ductivity, the  greater  the  product  the  higher  would  be  the  wages;  for 
this  has  been  the  reading  of  economic  history,  no  matter  how  individuals 
here  and  there  protest.  Hence  the  result  would  be  lower  expenses  of 
production,  a  fall  in  the  prices  of  staple  goods,  and  a  generally  increased 
welfare  among  those  classes  whose  satisfactions  have  been  increased. 

Not  only  would  the  consumer  be  benefited,  but  the  increased  pro- 
ductivity of  industry  would  enable  the  home  producer  to  sell  his  goods 
cheaper  in  foreign  markets.  As  things  are  going  now,  the  hindrances  to 
production  and  making  work  by  unions  are  the  serious  influences  now 
threatening  to  contract  our  foreign  trade.  The  new  policy  proposed  to 
the  unions  would  therefore  aid  the  United  States  in  keeping  its  present 
advantages  in  the  field  of  international  competition. 

While  it  has  been  impossible  to  discuss  fully  all  the  points  which 
may  have  arisen  in  the  reader's  mind,  it  must  suffice  to  bring  into  bold 
contrast  the  present  erroneous  policy  of  the  labor  unions  with  the  possible 
one  of  productivity.  In  a  very  true  sense,  the  labor  problem  is  a  conflict 
between  different  grades  of  skill.  Legitimate  industrial  success  comes 
with  the  ability  to  use  better  than  others  the  agencies  of  production. 
One  reason  why  managerial  power  commands  such  high  wages  is  that  a 
highly  capable  leader  in  industry  receives  returns  not  merely  for  the  use  of 
capital^  but  because  he  sees  and  grasps  an  opportunity  where  other  men 
see  nothing.  No  matter  where  a  man  begins  in  life,  if  he  has  skill,  insight, 
foresight,  judgment,  knowledge  of  men,  and  managerial  force,  he  will 
gain  at  least — if  not  more  than — in  proportion  to  his  productivity.  There- 


Do  OPEN  SHOP  EMPLOYERS  HIRE  UNIONISTS? 47 

fore,  if  the  unions  wish  to  elevate  their  fellow-workers,  instead  of  break- 
ing the  heads  of  non-union  men,  they  should  set  a  premium  on  industrial 
education.  It  ought  to  be  as  easy  for  a  working  man's  child  to  become  a 
skilled  craftsman— a  machinist,  carpenter,  mason  or '  bricklayer— in  our 
public  school  system  as  it  is  to  acquire  geography  and  algebra.  By  era- 
dicating industrial  incapacity  and  substituting  skill  therefor,  we  should 
be  increasing  the  wages  of  all  classes,  developing  wealth  in  all  forms, 
and  enlarging  the  well-being  of  the  whole  nation. 


Organized  But  Not  Unionized 

(From  an  article  entitled,  "Organized  But  Not  Unionized," 
in  the  "New  Sky  Line,"  published  by  the  Little  Rock,  Arkansas, 
Board  of  Commerce,  March  6,  1920.) 

White  Motor  Trucks,  Cleveland,  O.,  are  organized,  but  not  unionized. 
No  walking  delegate  from  the  outside  comes  in  to  interfere  or  to  tell 
the  men  or  the  company  what  shall  or  shall  not  be  done.  The  men  have 
a  representative  organization,  made  up  from  small  groups,  each  group 
having  a  representative.  The  representatives  come  direct  from  the  work- 
men, and  meet  at  stated  times  in  regular  assembly.  All  matters  for 
consideration  originate  among  the  men,  and  are  then  discussed  and  passed 
upon  by  the  assembly.  Those  things  possessing  merit  are  adopted  and 
passed  on  to  a  higher  body,  composed  of  the  heads  of  the  departments, 
or  foremen  and  the  others  are  rejected.  When  favorable  consideration 
is  given  to  a  matter  by  the  higher  body,  it  is  then  passed  on  to  the  execu- 
tive heads  of  the  business,  where  it  is  either  approved  or  vetoed.  Some- 
times conferences  are  held  between  the  executives  and  a  committee  from 
the  representative  body,  and  matters  that  cannot  be  approved  are  modified 
so  as  to  meet  approval.  The  history  of  this  arrangement  reveals  very 
few  instances  where  the  veto  power  has  been  exercised.  The  men  are 
invited  to  employ  initiative,  and  to  make  suggestions  for  the  improve- 
ment of  working  conditions  and  factory  conditions.  Under  this 
plan  the  workmen  find  frequent  opportunity  to  make  suggestions  that  will 
increase  factory  output  or  lower  factory  costs,  and  add  to  the  changes  in 
the  light  of  the  company's  ability  to  meet  them  out  of  the  profits.  The 
results  of  this  arrangement  have  been  highly  satisfactory  to  the  men  and 
to  the  company.  The  men  have  been  given  increased  pay  on  a  basis  of 
reason  and  right,  and  through  this  co-operative  spirit  the  company  has 
been  able  to  meet  the  expectations  of  its  men  out  of  the  profits  accruing 
from  increased  efficiency  and  factory  output.  Rational  organization  has 
taken  the  place  of  the  labor  union  in  the  White  plant.  The  things  con- 
sidered by  the  men  are  things  of  common  interest  to  the  men  and  the 
company,  and  harmony  characterizes  the  deliberations.  There  are  no 
strikes,  no  labor  troubles.  A  community  of  interest  exists,  and  is  re- 
spected. The  men  make  more  money  by  earning  more  money,  and  not 
by  demanding  it  arbitrarily.  The  company  is  able  to  pay  the  men  more 
money  out  of  the  increased  profits  of  the  business,  made  through  the 


48  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

initiative  and  increased  efficiency  of  the  men.  This  is  the  kind  of  labor 
organization  that  will  get  somewhere  and  accomplish  something.  In 
fact,  it  has  accomplished  much.  It  has  no  walking  delegates,  no  paid 
representatives,  no*  fines,  suspensions  or  heavy  dues.  It  has  no  outside 
interference,  no  labor  disputes  or  disturbances,  and  but  few  grievances, 
most  of  which  are  individual,  and  adjudicated  in  a  way  to  establish  jus- 
tice and  promote  harmony. 

These  Unions  Did  Not  Die 

"Street  Railway  Employment  in  the  United  States",  a 
bulletin  issued  in  April,  1917,  by  the  United  States  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics,  clearly  demonstrates  that  unions  may  exist 
where  the  open  shop  prevails.  Sixty-seven  agreements  between 
the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Street  and  Electric  Railway 
Employes  and  the  companies  refer  to  "the  matter  of  employes 
becoming  members  of  the  association,"  says  the  government 
bulletin  on  Page  308.  "Membership  is  compulsory  as  a  condition 
of  employment  under  the  terms  of  30  agreements,  while  the  other 
37  contain  optional  clauses  only."  An  examination  of  these  37 
show  that  29  are  indisputably  open  shop  agreements.  The  great 
majority  of  unions  refuse  to  make  any  but  closed  shop  ageements 
and  insist  that  they  must  follow  this  course  or  perish ;  yet  this 
government  document  absolutely  proves  the  falsity  of  their  claim. 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING  4Q 


CHAPTER    VI. 

Collective  Bargaining 

The  general  attitude  of  the  majority  of  open  shop  employers 
towards  collective  bargaining  is  set  forth  in  Chapter  II. 

At  the  1919  convention  of  the  National  Association  of. 
Manufacturers  the  following  report  was  presented  By  the 
Sub-Committee  on  Cooperative  Representation.  This  report 
amply  demonstrates  that  collective  bargaining  with  one's  own 
employes,  without  outside  interference  or  influence,  is  not  at  all 
inconsistent  with  the  open  shop, 

Cooperative  Representation 

Your  Committee  on  Cooperative  Representation,  which  may  be  denned 
to  be  a  method  or  plan  by  which  employes  shall  deal  collectively,  through 
representatives  selected  by  them,  with  employers  as  to  wages,  conditions 
of  work,  etc.,  reports  as  follows: 

Such  a  plan  of  representation  in  establishments  where  the  number  of 
employes  is  so  great  that  individual  contact  by  the  employer  with  each 
employe  is  impracticable,  would  appear  to  be  a  valuable  and  necessary 
channel  of  communication  between  the  employer  and  the  employes,  whereby 
they  may  be  able  to  avoid  misunderstandings,  to  determine  in  a  reason- 
able manner  upon  modifications  of  wages  or  working  conditions,  and  in 
general  to  establish  such  friendly  relationships  as  will  be  beneficial  to  the 
interest  of  both  the  employer  and  the  employes. 

The  various  plans  examined  by  your  Committee  differ  only  in  minor 
details,  and  a  typical  cooperative  representation  plan  may  be  outlined 
as  follows: 

i.    Purposes 

(a)  To  provide  regular  means  of  access  by  employes  through  the 
representatives  to  the  employer  and  for  consultations  by  the  employer  with 
employes  through  their  representatives. 

(b)  To  avoid  interruption  of  production  and  to  maintain  maximum 
production, 

(c)  To  give  employes   an   opportunity  to   discuss   conditions   under 
which  they  work  and  the  means  of  improvement. 

(d)  To  further  the  common  interest  of  the  employes  and  the  employer 
in  all  matters  pertaining  to  work,  organization  and  efficiency. 

2.    Methods  of  Adoption 

The  employes  to  be  invited  to  cooperate  with  the  management  by 
electing  from  among  their  number  by  ballot  representatives  in  whom  they 
have  confidence,  and  through  whom  they  may  deal  with  the  manage- 
ment 

•  The  number  of  representatives  to  be  not  less  than  two  of  each  section, 
or  one  for  each  one  hundred  employes  or  more  as  may  be  determined. 
Elections  to  be  held  semi-annually,  the  representatives  to  hold  office  for 
one  year,  except  that  one-half  of  such  representatives  chosen  at  the  first 


SO  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

election  shall  be  retired  by  lot  at  the  end  of  the  first  six  months'  period, 
and  their  successors  then  elected. 

Any  representative  may  be  recalled  upon  the  written  request  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  employes  qualified  to  vote  in  his  election.  The  office  of  a 
representative  shall  become  vacant  upon  termination  of  his  employment, 
or  upon  his  appointment  as  department  head,  foreman  or  leading  hand. 
Vacancies  shall  be  filled  by  special  election  for  unexpired  terms. 

No  department  head,  foreman  or  leading  hand  shall  be  entitled  to 
vote  or  be  eligible  for  election  as  a  representative. 

There  shall  be  no  discrimination,  either  by  employes  or  the  employer, 
because  of  creed,  society,  fraternity  or  labor  organization. 

3.     Qualifications  of  Representatives  and  Voters 

Only  an  employe  who  is  an  American  citizen  (or  who  has  taken  out 
his  first  papers),  who  has  been  employed  for  six  months  and  who  is 
twenty-one  years  of  age  or  over  may  be  a  representative.  All  employes 
who  at  the  time  of  an  election  shall  have  been  employed  for  three  months 
or  more,  and  who  are  eighteen  years  of  age  or  over,  shall  be  entitled 
to  vote  for  Representatives. 

4.     Methods  of  Conducting  Elections 

Elections  to  be  held  within  the  works  semi-annually  at  fixed  dates, 
and  upon  notice  which  shall  be  posted  at  least  three  days  in  advance  of 
the  election. 

Each  employe  to  be  given  a  ballot  upon  which  to  write  or  have  written 
the  names  of  his  choice  of  his  fellow  employes  for  representatives  in 
his  section.  The  employes  in  each  section  to  name  one  of  their  number 
to  act  as  teller,  with  whom  representative  of  the  company  shall  act 
conjointly.  The  tellers  shall  have  custody  of  the  ballot  box  until  the  votes 
are  counted  and  results  announced. 

5.    Industrial  Representative 

The  employer  shall  appoint  an  industrial  representative  to  facilitate 
close  relationship  between  the  management  and  the  employes'  representa- 
tives. He  shall  respond  promptly  to  any  request  from  the  representatives 
and  may  attend  any  meeting  but  shall  have  no  vote. 

6.    Joint  Committee 

In  a  small  plant  committees  may  be  appointed  representing  the  entire 
membership;  in  larger  plants  subdivision  may  be  made  and  committees 
appointed  for  each  division.  Each  committee  to  consist  of  six  persons, 
three  of  whom  shall  be  appointed  by  the  employes'  representatives,  and 
three  by  the  management. 

Committees  shall  meet  regularly  each  month,  and  special  meetings 
may  be  called  when  necessary. 

The  time  spent  by  employes'  representatives  at  regular  or  special 
meetings  jointly  by  the  members  of  the  committees  involved,  shall  be 
paid  for  by  the  employer  at  regular  rates. 

The  committees  may  be  as  follows : 

1.  Committee  on  Routine,  Procedure  and  Elections. 

2.  Committee  on  Adjustment  of  Wages  and  Working  Conditions. 


COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING  51 

3.  Committee  on  Safety. 

4.  Committee  on  Efficiency,  Economy  and  Suggestions. 

5.  Committee  on  Health  and  Recreation. 

6.  Committee  on  Education. 

Each  committee  to  keep  a  record  of  its  proceedings. 

7.    Procedure 

Any  matter  requiring  adjustment  to  be  referred  in  the  first  instance 
by  the  employe  affected,  with  one  of  the  representatives  of  his  section, 
to  the  foreman  under  whom  the  employe  is  engaged.  If  a  decision  is  not 
promptly  reached  the  matter  to  be  referred  to  the  section  superintendent, 
and  if  he  fails  to  make  adjustment  the  matter  is  then  referred  to  the 
joint  committee  involved.  Unanimous  decision  of  the  joint  committee 
shall  be  final.  In  case  of  failure  to  reach  such  decision,  the  questions 
involved  to  be  put  in  writing  and  submitted  to  the  management  for  action. 

8.    Amendment 

Any  course  of  procedure  herein  provided  may  be  amended  by  unani- 
mous vote  of  the  Committee  on  Routine,  Procedure  and  Elections. 

The  foregoing  is  intended  only  to  be  an  outline  of  a  plan  embodying 
the  principle  of  dealing  with  employes  through  representatives,  details 
of  elections,  elected  by  them  and  modification  would  be  made  of  number 
of  representatives,  details  of  elections,  and  number  and  duties  of  com- 
mittees, etc.,  as  in  each  case  might  seem  desirable. 

The  Committee  on  Cooperative  Representation  Plans  recommends 
to  your  Committee  that  report  be  made  to  the  Board  of  Directors  favor- 
ing such  methods  of  dealing  between  employers  and  employes  in  large 
establishments,  believing  that  such  plans  will  bring  employer  and  employe 
closer  together,  preventing  misunderstandings  with  resulting  irritation 
and  loss,  and  be  constructively  of  benefit  to  both  employer  and  employe. 

Open  Shop  Collective  Bargaining 

Is  there  any  method  by  which  Collective  Bargaining  can 
function  under  the  open  shop  conditions? 

We  would  call  attention  to  the  Monthly  Labor  Review  of 
August,  1918,  beginning  on  page  180,  which  describes  a  collective 
bargaining  system  which  permits  the  employment  of  both  union 
and  non-union  workers.  Summarizing  the  experience  of  the  fac- 
tory in  which  the  system  is  analyzed,  Dr.  Emmet,  the  author, 
says :  "The  three  years  operation  of  the  plan  has  resulted  in  put- 
ting on  a  collective  basis,  the  wage  bargaining  of  the  establish- 
ment, as  well  as  hours  of  labor,  discipline,  discharges,  and  adjust- 
ment of  grievances." 

The  National  Ind\]fitria1  r^"fprfnV?  Board,  in  October,  1919, 
issued  a  report  entitled,  "Works  Councils  in  the  United 
States."  Of  eighty-one  establishments  from  which  information 
was  secured  on  trie  particular  point.  s£venty-pnereported  that  they 
maintained  open  shops.  The  report  as  a  wnole  is  an  interesting 
analysis  of  systems  of  collective  or  mutual  bargaining  between 
the  employes  of  an  establishment  and  its  management,  which 


52  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

do  not  provide  for  recognition  of  the  trade  union.    That  is,  they 
do  not  grant  the  closed  shop. 

The  Question  of  Size 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  James  A.  Emery,  General  Counsel 
of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  before  the  Indus- 
trial Relations  Commission,  April  8,  1914.) 

MR.  THOMPSON:  From  your  study  of  this  question  of  collective  bar- 
gaining and  from  the  experience  you  have  gained  in  your  position  as 
counsel  for  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  do  you  believe 
that  an  individual  can  fare  as  well  with  reference  to  his  wages,  hour  or 
labor,  conditions  of  work,  if  he  deals  individually  with  the  employer 
as  he  would  if  he  should  deal  collectively  with  him? 

MR.  EMERY  :  Generally  speaking,  it  depends  upon  the  quality  and 
character  of  the.  employer  and  his  size.  To  illustrate  what  I  say,  I 
heard  Mr.  Gompers's  very  interesting  illustration  here,  which  he  presented 
with  characteristic  extremity.  It  is  true,  what  he  said,  as  to  the  indi- 
vidual bargain  with  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  but  it  is  just  like 
talking  about  a  plumber  over  on  F  Street  here  having  a  little  shop — 
a  smaller  employer,  who  employs  two  or  three  men — dealing  with  the 
plumbers'  union.  The  small  employer  is  at  the  same  disadvantage  in  deal- 
ing with  the  union.  I  assume  that  if  all  the  employers  of  men  in  this 
country  were  taken  together  it  would  be  found  that  the  average  employer 
employs  between  five  and  ten  men.  I  merely  take  those  figures  from 
estimates  that  I  have  heard  made  by  many  manufacturers,  both  large 
and  small.  While  it  seems  quite  true  that  the  individual  laborers  would 
be  at  a  decided  disadvantage  in  dealing  with  a  large  manufacturer,  it 
is  equally  true  that  the  small  employer  is  at  a  decided  disadvantage 
in  dealing  with  a  large  union,  and  while  it  is  true  that  the  individual 
wage  earner  may  be  both  poor  and  somewhat  weak,  it  is  equally  true 
that  collectively  he  is  rich  and  powerful  which  is  illustrated  by  the 
influence  exerted  by  many  large  labor  organizations  and  by  the  very 
fortunate  conditions  of  their  treasuries ;  and  it  is  equally  true  that  there 
are  many  employers  of  labor  who  are  as  much  enmeshed  by  the  situation 
in  which  they  made  their  contracts  as  any  individual  laborer  could 
be.  Mr.  Bradstreet  tells  us  that  about  five  per  cent  of  the  men  who 
engage  in  manufacturing  industries  succeed.  The  remainder  fail.  So 
that  the  roadway  of  the  manufacturer  is  by  no  means  of  high  success 
and  certainty. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Mr.  Emery,  if  it  is  true  that  the  small  employer 
is  in  the  aggregate  the  large  employer  of  the  country,  and  if  it  also  is 
true  that  the  small  is  weak  in  dealing  with  the  workingmen  who  are  organ- 
ized, then  it  would  naturally  follow,  would  it  not,  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  workingman  at  least  for  him  to  deal  collectively  with  the  employer 
would  better  his  condition  ? 

MR.  EMERY:     Yes;  in  many  cases. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     I  mean  as  a  general  proposition? 

MR.  EMERY:     Well,  that  is  an  abstract  question  that  would  have  to 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING  S3 


be  divided  probably  into  several  considerations  to  admit  of  a  positive 
answer,  a  categorical  answer,  at  least. 

MR.  THOMPSON:    Would  you  mind  dividing  it? 

MR.  EMERY:  Certainly.  I  think  there  is  a  great  number  of  working- 
men  in  this  country,  and  the  higher  you  go  in  the  scale  of  efficiency 
the  more  you  find  of  them  who  dislike  to  surrender  their  earning  power 
to  an  organization  that  makes  its  bargain  for  them.  I  think  your  inquiry 
is  directed  to  this  question,  because  the  market  for  labor  in  skilled 
trades,  is  always  undersupplied. 

So  far  as  I  know,  the  demand  for  men  highly  skilled,  men  capable 
of  filling  the  positions  of  foremen  and  superintendents — I  am  speaking 
of  skilled  labor — is  never  satisfied,  and  I  know  personally  from  many 
manufacturers  that  I  have  come  into  contact  with  that  there  is  always 
a  pressing  need  and  demand  expressed  for  the  higher  forms  of  skill, 
both  the  individual  workmen  and  for  those  capable  of  being  foremen 
and  for  leadership  and  for  constructive  purposes,  for  the  increase  of 
efficiency  of  the  plant  generally,  because  the  intelligent  employer  realizes 
that  that  is  the  way  to  secure  efficiency  in  competition,  not  only  within 
the  surroundings  of  our  own  nation,  but  over  the  face  of  the  earth,  and 
that  it  is  the  efficient  nation  who  owns  the  markets  of  the  world. 
So  the  desire  of  every  employer  is  to  cultivate  by  every  means  in  his 
power  the  efficiency  of  his  men,  and  I  think  he  realizes  as  keenly  as 
any  element  in  our  community  possibly  can  the  enormous  opportunity 
that  good  feeling  between  employer  and  employe  has  in  producing  neces- 
sary condition  of  success. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Then,  as  I  understand,  if  you  were  an  employe 
of  the  ordinary  and  usual  industries  of  this  country,  looking  for  a  job 
and  seeking  to  do  the  best  for  yourself  that  you  could,  you  would  be  in 
doubt  as  to  whether  it  was  advisable,  in  order  to  accomplish  that  pur- 
pose, to  join  a  union  or  to  become  organized  or  not? 

MR.  EMERY:  It  would  not  depend  upon  that  consideration  alone. 
Peace  for*  myself  and  my  family  might  induce  me  to  do  many  things 
that  my  industrial  progress  would  require. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  But  taking  those  conditions,  without  any  other 
considerations,  that  would  be  your  idea? 

MR.  EMERY:    It  would  depend  upon  the  trade  I  belong  to. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  I  mean  eliminating  both  the  advantages  and  dis- 
advantages that  would  come  to  you  ? 

MR.  EMERY:    Yes. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Eliminate  the  necessity  of  joining  a  union  in  order 
to  get  a  job. 

MR.  EMERY:  Yes;  and  I  think  I  would  be  supported  in  that  opinion 
by  many,  many  millions  of  my  intelligent  and  practical  citizens. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  I  take  it  that  you  mean  a  small  percentage  of  the 
workers  are  organized? 

MR.  EMERY:  The  percentage  of  unorganized  is  much  greater  than 
organized  and  in  view  of  the  active  missionary  campaign  of  organized 
labor  there  must  be  excellent  reasons  for  so  many  remaining  unorganized. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     That  rather  implies,  I  take  it,  that  you  consider 


54  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

the  people  unorganized  here  seriously  considered  the  question  of  organiza- 
tion and  have  the  means  of  forming  an  organization,  but,  having  that 
door  open  to  them,  have  decided  that  on  the  whole  it  is  best  not  to  do  so  ? 

MR.  EMERY  :  That  is  a  conclusion  I  naturally  form  from  the  con- 
ditions which  I  observe  all  about  me. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Then  we  are  to  understand,  as  I  said  before,  that 
you  have  no  opinion  as  to  the  merits  or  demerits  of  collective  bargaining 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  employe,  no  general  opinion? 

MR.  EMERY:  On  the  contrary,  if  I  were  looking  at  the  matter 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  employe,  I  see  many  advantages  in  collective 
bargaining,  a  great  many  indeed,  and  I  should  certainly  be  guilty  at  least 
of  having  suffered  a  miscarriage  of  interpretation  if  I  permitted  you  to 
believe  that  I  was  personally  opposed  to  collective  bargaining  or  that  my 
experience  was  against  it  or  that  I  did  not  recognize  it  to  be  not 
only  of  importance,  but  a  very  essential  feature  of  our  modern  life  in 
many  instances. 

I  would  say  that  it  is  very  difficult — collective  bargaining,  without 
referring  to  it  with  the  approval  or  disapproval  which  I  would  give  it — 
depends  entirely  upon  the  principles  which  underlie  the  proposal.  If  you 
say,  for  instance,  the  form  of  collective  bargaining  that  is  presented  in 
what  I  regard  the  best  statement  ever  made  upon  that  subject,  in  the 
report  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Commission  of  1902,  I  would  say  not 
only  for  myself,  but  the  great  body  of-  manufacturers  I  personally  have 
been  in  contact  with,  they  accept  practically  almost  unreservedly  the 
opinions  there  expressed  and  would  indorse  the  form  of  collective  bar- 
gaining with  the  principles  underlying  it  was  so  satisfactorily  outlined 
in  that  space. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Could  you  briefly  state  in  your  own  language  what 
that  form  is  and  what  are  the  commendable  features  of  it  which  you 
indorse? 

Award  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission 

MR.  EMERY:  The  most  important,  to  my  mind,  is  that  found  under 
the  ninth  finding  of  the  commission.  You 'will,  of  course,  recollect  that 
both  employers  and  employes  were  represented  on  this  commission,  unor- 
ganized employers,  I  believe,  and  organized  employes,  in  person  by  E.  E. 
Clark,  now  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  The  most  important 
principle  there  is  stated  thus: 

"It  is  adjudged  and  awarded  that  no  person  shall  be  refused  employ- 
ment, or  in  any  way  discriminated  against  on  account  of  membership  or 
non-membership  in  any  labor  organization ;  that  there  shall  be  no  dis- 
crimination against  or  interference  with  any  employe  who  is  not  a  member 
of  any  labor  organization  by  members  of  such  organization." 

I  regard  that  as  the  most  important,  and  a  most  fundamentally 
important  principle.  Of  course,  there  are  no  such  questions  arising  here 
as  to  the  restriction  of  product  or  restriction  of  apprentices;  no  issues 
of  that  character  were  presented 

On  the  other  hand,  I  should  hesitate  very  much,  it  seems  to  me, 
to  engage  in  any  collective  bargaining  in  which  this  section  was  embraced 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING  55 


as  part  of  it,  part  of  the  governing  law  that  was  to  rule.  I  read  from 
the  constitution  and  by-laws  of  the  Glass  Bottle  Blowers'  Association. 
This  agreement  covers  the  1913-14  blast: 

"A  member  who  encourages  or  assists  in  any  manner,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  any  foreign  glass  blower  to  come  to  the  country  shall, 
upon  conviction,  be  fined  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  and  to  be 
suspended  from  work  for  one  year." 

"Clause  25.  No  foreign  glass  blower  shall  be  admitted  into  the 
association  during  the  blast  of-  1913-14.  But  the  national  president  and 
executive  board  shall  have  power  to  admit  such  when  deemed  necessary, 
and  initiation  fee  of  five  hundred  dollars  ($500)  imposed." 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:     What  year  is  that? 

MR.  EMERY:  1913.  The  blast  of  1913-14  is  now  in  force.  It  would 
seem  to  me,  since  you  have  asked  me  as  an  employe,  that  I  should  some- 
what hesitate  to  become  a  member  of  the  typographical  union  if  I  were 
required  to  take  this  obligation,  part  of  which  reads  as  follows:  "That 
my  fidelity  to  the  union  and  my  duty  to  the  members  thereof  shall  be  in 
no  sense  interfered  with  by  any  allegiance  that  I  may  now  or  may  here- 
after owe  to  any  other  organization,  social,  political  or  religious,  secret 
or  otherwise." 

I  am  reading  article  12,  section  i.  That  complete  clause  is  part  of 
the  common  obligation  given  to  members. 

I  simply  speak  of  this  to  illustrate  my  answer  to  your  inquiry  as  to 
whether  I  would  be  a  member  of  this  or  that  organization,  and  I  would 
say  that  it  depends  entirely  on  the  conditions  attached  to  the  membership, 
and  to  the  prospect  of  employment.  I  would  not  be  misunderstood  for  a 
minute  in  either  questioning  the  necessity,  propriety,  and  the  enormous 
social  and  individual  value  of  the  organization  of  the  workingman.  What 
I  discuss  now,  when  you  ask  that  question,  is  perhaps  a  criticism  of 
features  of  it  which  seem  to  be  intertwined  with  the  movement  among 
organizations,  which  seems  to  me  subject  for  a  proper  criticism. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Let  me  see  if  I  can  state  your  position,  as  I  get 
it  at  least,  that  where  the  making  of  a  collective  bargain  with  the 
employer  automatically  incorporated  into  that  agreement  detrimental 
conditions  or  clauses  such  as  those  you  have  named,  naturally  being  in 
your  opinion  a  bad  agreement,  you  would  not  make  it? 

MR.  EMERY:    No. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  But  that  if  an  agreement  to  be  made  between 
the  parties  had  no  detrimental  features  such  as  those  you  have  named, 
or  anything  similar,  you  would  then  believe  in  collective  bargaining  ? 

MR.  EMERY  :  When  you  say  "detrimental,"  that  may  either  be  a  ques- 
tion of  principle  or  of  policy.  A  question  of  policy,  of  course,  can  be 
readily  corrected  by  change;  a  question  of  principle,  of  course — 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  I  am  trying  to  first  get  at  the  pure  question  as 
to  whether,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  employer,  or  the  standpoint 
of  the  employe,  collective  bargaining  is  a  good  proposition  to  go  on. 

MR.  EMERY  :     Yes. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :    Then,  we  can  eliminate  from  that  such  cases  of  col- 


56  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

lective  bargaining  that  we  would  not  agree  to.  Do  you  believe  in  a  general 
principle  of  collective  bargaining  between  employer  and  employe? 

MR.  EMERY:  Yes;  I  think  it  an  excellent  thing  in  many  cases.  I 
think  the  smaller  the  employer  the  more  difficult  position  he  is  in,  and 
the  larger  the  employer  the  more  difficult  position  the  individual  employe 
would  be  without  it. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  You  have  read  from  the  glass  blowers'  constitution 
and  by-laws.  What  has  the  introduction  of  a  man  in  the  glass  blowers' 
trade,  which  has  made  that  more  or  less  an  automatic  proposition,  had 
to  do — or,  change  the  form  of  the  question.  It  is  possible  that  the 
introduction  of  such  a  man  had  the  effect  of  throwing  or  tending  to 
throw  a  great  many  men  out  of  employment  in  the  glass  blowers'  trade? 

MR.  EMERY:    Yes;  I  have  heard  that. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Men  who  have  heretofore  been  recognized  as 
highly  skilled  men  and  who  have  devoted  their  lives  to  learning  their 
trade  and  becoming  skilled  at  it;  that  therefore  under  such  conditions 
it  was  necessary  for  the  union  men  to  protect  the  livelihood  of  them- 
selves and  their  families  by  introducing  just  such  clauses  in  the  by-laws 
so  as  to  take  into  consideration  the  introduction  of  such  a  machine  to  the 
world  all  at  once  would  seem  like  restrictive  conditions  which  were 
unbearable  and  unjust;  if  the  introduction  of  those  clauses  was  caused 
by  the  introduction  of  such  a  machine,  would  that  mitigate  your  view 
of  such  clauses? 

MR.  EMERY:  It  would  not  mitigate  the  condition  of  a  person  who 
did  not  happen  to  be  a  member  of  the  union,  and  was  equally  under 
the  necessity  of  supporting  his  wife  and  children. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Do  you  know  of  any  union  in  which  the  system 
of  collective  bargaining  which  you  commend  has  been  enforced? 

MR.  EMERY  :  You  mean  in  which  the  right  of  non-members  of  the 
organization  to  belong  is  recognized? 

MR  THOMPSON:     Yes. 

Collective  Bargaining  But  Open  Shop 

MR.  EMERY:  A  great  many.  Brotherhoods  are,  of  course,  the  most 
striking  examples,  and  there  are  many  others.  For  instance,  the  street 
railways  of  Boston  have  just  entered  into  arrangements,  or  have  just 
made  a  collective  bargain  with  the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Street 
Railway  Employes,  which  is  a  member  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor.  The  first  clause  in  that  collective  agreement  provides  practically 
for  a  principle  that  is  here  recognized  in  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike 
Commission,  and,  of  course,  when  I  read  you  from  that,  I  brought  to 
your  attention  by  that  fact  an  agreement  entered  into  which  covered  all 
the  coal  miners  whom  Mr.  Mitchell  so  ably  represented  here  the  other 
day. 

That  principle  is  still  recognized,  although  I  heard  Mr.  Mitchell  say 
the  other  day  that  a  man  was  expected  automatically  to  become  a  member 
of  the  union.  The  Amalgamated  Association  of  Street  Railway  Men 
has  just  made  this  arrangement  with  the  Boston  Elevated,  and  the  first 
provision  of  the  agreement  recognized  that  condition.  I  have  here  a  num- 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING  57 


ber  of  agreements  with  stationary  engineers  in  which  that  arrangement 
was  made,  and  I  know  the  members  of  our  own  association,  quite  a  few 
of  them,  who  have  collective  bargains  in  which  they  decline  to  exclu- 
sively employ  the  members  of  the  union  with  which  they  deal,  but  in 
other  respects  recognize  them  as  to  hours,  wages,  and  working  conditions, 
and  deal  with  their  representatives,  and  in  all  respects  treat  them  as  the 
agents  or  authorized  representatives  of  the  men,  but  not  as  the  exclusive 
source  for  their  labor  supply. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  In  referring  to  the  question  of  collective  bargain- 
ing, I  have  not  necessarily  inferred  that  it  must  be  with  the  union. 

MR.  EMERY:    Sir? 

MR.  THOMPSON:  In  considering  the  question  of  collective  bargain- 
ing, I  have  not  implied  that  it  must  necessarily  be  with  organized  trade 
or  craft,  but  rather,  as  a  whole  of  the  employes  of  the  factory  or  employes 
generally  in  a  line  of  industry;  following  that  out,  however,  and  your 
answer — 

MR.  EMERY:  Your  question,  if  you  will  pardon  me,  was,  of  course, 
whether  or  not  I  knew  any  organization  maintaining  collective  bargaining 
of  the  type  to  which  I  have  alluded. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Following  out  the  last  answer  which  you  gave,  or 
at  least  apropos  of  it,  if  you  were  a  miner  working  in  the  anthracite 
coal  region,  would  you  be  inclined  to  join  the  union  because  of  benefits 
you  might  thereby  derive — I  do  not  mean  to  escape  violence,  but  for  the 
benefits  you  might  derive,  would  you  be  apt  to  become  a  member  of  the 
union? 

MR.  EMERY:     Yes;   I  might. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  If  you  were  a  trainman,  Mr.  Emery,  on  some  of  the 
railroads  where  there  are  brotherhoods,  the  brotherhoods  you  spoke  of, 
would  you  be  inclined  to  join  those  organizations  and  deal  collectively 
with  the  railroad  company,  or  would  you  be  inclined  to  remain  an  indi- 
vidual and  deal  individually? 

MR.  EMERY:  It  is  very  difficult  to  answer  that  question  from  my 
standpoint.  I  might  and  I  might  not,  according  to  the  circumstances. 
I  would  take  complete  personal  responsibility  for  what  I  did.  I  could 
answer  you  very  fully,  in  the  terms  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Com- 
mission if  you  would  like  to  hear  it.  They  answered  that  question  very 
completely  and  I  think  very  satisfactorily,  and  that  report  was  signed 
by  Mr.  Clark. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :    I  will  be  pleased  to  have  it. 

MR.  EMERY:     (reading): 

"The  union  must  not  undertake  to  assume  or  to  interfere  with 
the  management  of  the  business  of  the  employer.  It  should  strive  to  make 
membership  in  it  so  valuable  as  to  attract  all  who  are  eligible,  but  in 
its  efforts  to  build  itself  up  it  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  those 
who  may  think  differently  have  certain  rights  guaranteed  them  by  our 
free  government.  However  irritating  it  may  be  to  see  a  man  enjoy  bene- 
fits to  the  securing  of  which  he  refuses  to  contribute,  either  morally  or 
physically  or  financially,  the  fact  that  he  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  his  per- 
sonal services  as  he  chooses  can  not  be  ignored.  The  non-union  man 


58  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

assumes  the  whole  responsibility  which  results  from  being  such,  but  his 
right  and  privilege  of  being  a  non-union  man  are  sanctioned  in  law  and 
morals.  The  rights  and  privileges  of  non-union  men  are  as  sacred  to  them 
as  the  rights  and  privileges  of  unionists.  The  contention  that  a  majority 
of  the  employes  in  an  industry,  by  voluntarily  associating  themselves  in 
a  union,  acquire  authority  over  those  who  do  not  associate  themselves 
is  untenable." 

Of  course,  your  inquiry  is  naturally  predicated  upon  the  assumption 
implied  behind  your  question  that  I  might  find  it  valuable  to  join  the 
union.  I  might  and  I  might  not.  I  should  insist  upon  the  recognition 
of  my  right  to  pursue  my  own  happiness  and  to  make  my  living  for 
myself  and  family  in  either  case  as  I  saw  best,  and  I  regard  that  as  a 
most  fundamental  principle  in  this  whole  controversy. 


A  Common  Misconception  of  Employment  Relations 

(From  an  address  of  James  A.  Emery,  General  Counsel 
for  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  before  the  Chi- 
cago Association  of  Commerce,  February  2,  1921.) 

But  the  common  misconception  of  the  conditions  of  the  general  em- 
ployment relation  in  industry  in  the  United  States  have  prevailed  rather 
than  the  true  one.  One  of  the  common  misconcepts  at  the  bottom  of  the 
discussion,  whenever  you  start  it,  is  that  you  have  before  you  the  spectacle 
of  a  very  large  employer,  on  the  one  hand,  who  employs  thousands  of  men, 
and,  on  the  other,  thousands  of  men  who  have  no  individual  opportunity 
to  meet  with  that  employer  or  to  know  him  except  through  the  non-com- 
missioned officers  of  his  vast  army. 

Is  that  generally  true  of  American  industry?  Why,  gentlemen,  let  me 
tell  you  that  the  next  census  of  the  United  States  that  shortly  will  be 
published  will  show  in  the  neighborhood  of  300,000  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments in  the  United  States.  They  will  show  an  average  employment 
per  establishment  in  the  neighborhood  of  25  persons,  and  they  will  show 
that  98  per  cent  of  all  those  establishments  and  of  the  great  volume  of 
industrial  production  in  the  United  States  takes  place  in  plants  that  employ 
two  hundred  and  fifty  persons  or  less,  and  that  only  one-fifth  of  one  per 
cent  of  American  industrial  establishments  employ  more  than  one  thou- 
sand people. 

Shows  It  Is  Not  True 

So  it  is  not  true  that  you  have  only  great  groups  of  employes  operating 
under  a  single  employer.  You  have  in  the  great  aggregate  of  production 
a  condition  in  which  it  is  not  difficult  for  management  that  desires  to  do  so 
to  maintain  individual  relationships  with  its  employes  either  directly  or 
through  trained  conduits  that  translate  its  policy,  if  it  has  one. 

Let  us  understand  clearly  that  in  the  employment  relation  there  is  no 
denying  that  personal  relationship  betwen  employer  and  employe  is  the 
most  desirable  relationship  and  that  the  ability  to  maintain  it  is  one  of  the 
severest  as  it  is  the  truest  tests  of  management,  and  to-day  to  all  his  other 
competition  the  manager  has  added  the  necessity  of  competing  with  an 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING  59 


organized  interest  to  demonstrate  to  his  men  that  he  can  do  more  for  them 
through  intelligent  direction  and  sympathy  than  an  outside  interest  can. 

In  a  world  in  which  in  places  and  times  large  groups  of  men  are 
brought  together  under  a  common  management  there  should  be,  if  the 
parties  desire  it  and  the  circumstances  suggest  that  it  is  the  best  way  of  con- 
ducting their  relation  for  the  achievement  of  their  task  and  service  to  the 
public  interest,  that  they  should  collectively  agree  together,  but  I  resent 
and  I  reject  the  attempt  to  assert  that  a  collective  bargain  can  only  be 
made  with  one  particular  kind  of  a  collective  organization. 

Rock  That  Broke  Conference 

The  president's  first  industrial  conference  broke  on  that  rock  because 
the  labor  organizations  undertook  to  define  collective  bargaining  as  deal- 
ing with  a  labor  organization  through  its  chosen  representatives  and  the 
employers  insisted  that  a  collective  agreement  was  one  that  was  made  by 
an  individual  or  groups  of  individuals  with  other  groups  upon  such  condi- 
tions as  they  jointly  determine  to  be  agreeable. 

Collective  bargaining  in  its  broadest  sense  can  only  be  an  agreement 
between  an  individual  or  groups  of  employers  and  a  particular  group  or 
groups  of  working  men.  It  may  be  a  shop  council,  it  may  be  a  works 
council,  it  may  be  any  kind  of  an  agreement  within  the  plant  that  brings 
men  together  in  groups,  but  it  cannot  mean  and  it  cannot  be  construed  to 
mean  under  institutions  like  ours  nor  under  industrial  conditions  such  as 
exist  in  America,  an  exclusive  dealing  with  one  kind  of  an  organization. 
It  was  reported  back  by  the  chairman  of  the  public  group  in  the  employers' 
conference  at  that  time  that  the  leading  representatives  of  the  labor 
organizations  insisted  upon  their  definition  because  they  insisted  that  this 
conference  must  go  out  to  the  United  States  with  a  declaration  that  there 
was  no  kind  of  collective  bargaining  recognized  except  dealing  with  a 
labor  organization. 


Should  Wages  Be  Based  on  Time  or  Production? 

(From  Pamphlet  No.  3,  March  i,  1920,  of  the  Associated 
Industries  of  Tacoma.  This,  and  the  following  statement,  voice 
the  views  of  representative  employers'  organizations.) 

Collective  bargaining  in  the  sense  applied  and  so  loudly  demanded  by 
the  leaders  of  organized  labor,  is  an  ill  defined  term,  according  to  A.  L. 
DeLeeuw,  of  the  American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers,  who  points 
out  that  there  is  at  present  no  equitable  way  of  determining  wages,  and 
as  a  result  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  collective  bargaining. 

Wages  at  the  present  time  are  paid  for  time  given,  whereas  they 
should  be  paid  for  work  produced.  Employers  alone  cannot  correct  this 
condition,  but  employers  and  labor  together,  assisted  by  qualified  engi- 
neers, might  go  far  in  adjusting  this  unsatisfactory  condition  of  wage 
payment,  he  maintains. 

Thus,  far,  he  continues,  collective  bargaining  has  been  collective,  it 
must  be  admitted,  but  it  has  not  been  bargaining.  In  collective  bargain- 
ing it  is  supposed  that  some  or  all  of  the  employes  have  delegated  the 


60  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

right  to  bargain  for  them  to  some  attorney  or  business  agent.  In 
practically  all  cases  this  business  agent  is  their  union,  and  this  union, 
according  to  the  term  used,  is  supposed  to  bargain  with  the  employer. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  there  is  no  bargaining  and  under  the  present 
conditions  there  can  be  no  bargaining.  The  issue  has  been  brought  to  a 
conclusion  by  strikes  or  threats  of  strikes  which  is  no  more  a  method 
of  bargaining  than  when  a  man  points  a  gun  at  his  debtor  to  collect  a 
bill.  The  fact  that  the  bill  may  be  due  to  him,  and  even  overdue,  does 
not  make  this  a  method  of  bargaining. 

Furthermore,  is  such  "collective  bargaining"  bargaining  by  all  the 
employes,  or  is  it  bargaining  for  a  group  or  a  part  of  a  group?  If  it  is 
bargaining  by  a  union  acting  for  a  group  should  the  representative,  the 
business  agent,  show  credentials  before  the  bargaining  starts?  Such  a 
course  of  action  might  reveal  the  weakness  of  the  union,  but  would  prob- 
ably be  for  the  best  interests  of  the  third  party,  the  general  public. 


Dealing  Through  Third  Parties 

("Collective  Bargaining"  as  explained  in  The  Open  Shop, 
published  by  the  Business  Men's  Association  of  Omaha,  March  I, 
1920.) 

What  is  meant  by  "collective  bargaining?" 

Many  people  believe  that  it  means  bargaining  between  an  employer 
and  his  employes,  as  a  group,  as  distinguished  from  that  dealing  in  which 
he  would  meet  each  particular  individual  on  an  individual  basis.  That  was 
the  definition  which  many  people  had  in  mind  when  they  read  that  em- 
ployers in  the  president's  first  industrial  conference  were  accused  by 
labor  unions  of  refusing  to  concede  "collective  bargaining."  On  that 
basis  many  thought  the  employer  wrong. 

But',  however  willing  union  labor  leaders  may  be  to  let  the  public 
think  that  this  is  what  it  means  by  "collective  bargaining"  it  insists  upon 
a  very  different  meaning  of  the  phrase  when  it  comes  to  deal  with  em- 
ployers. The  real  definition  of  "collective  bargaining,"  as  union  labor 
leaders  seek  to  practice  it  is  stated  succinctly  by  W.  Jett  Lauck,  counsel 
for  the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Street  and  Electric  Railway  Em- 
ployes, who  says: 

"The  time  has  passed  when  collective  bargaining  can  or  should  be 
interpreted  in  any  other  way  than  as  to  mean  the  recognition  of  trade 
unions  or  labor  organizations.  As  urged  by  employes,  it  means  union 
recognition.  This  does  not  necessarily  mean  the  adoption  of  the  'closed 
shop,'  but  does  mean  that  the  street  railway  managements  shall  conduct 
all  negotiations  as  to  wages,  working  conditions  and  relations  with  a 
recognized  labor  organization." 

And  "a  recognized  labor  organization"  means  a  labor  union  affiliated 
with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

This  is  the  UNION  definition  of  "collective  bargaining."  It  does  not 
mean  collective  bargaining  by  all  the  employes  of  a  shop  or  a  single 
employer.  It  does  not  mean  direct  dealing  between  employer  and 
workmen  "in  the  family."  It  means  dealing  through  a  third  party— 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING  61 


the  union,  the  union  business  agent  or  imported  international  officer  from 
Chicago  or  Indianapolis  or  New  York,  who  makes  his  living  by  managing 
strikes  and  adjusting  disputes  (the  more  strike  the  more  management  to 
be  done;  the  more  disputes  the  more  adjustment  to  be  undertaken.)" 

Mr.  Lauck  insists  that  this  UNION  bargaining  does  not  "necessarily" 
mean  a  "closed  shop."  But,  if  "all  negotiations  as  to  wages,  working 
conditions  and  relations"  must  be  through  dealing  with  the  union  business 
agent,  what  voice  has  the  non-union  employe?  Experience  shows  that 
when  the  union  once  becomes  the  ONLY  medium  through  which  employer 
and  employe  can  talk  to  each  other,  the  "closed  shop"  follows  with  cer- 
tainty. 


The  Truth  About  the  President's  Conference 

(From  an  article,  "The  Menace  of  the  Closed  Shop,"  by 
Judge  Elbert  H.  Gary,  Chairman  of  the  United  States  Steel 
Corporation,  published  in  American  Industries,  January,  1920. 
This  is'an  answer  to  claims  that  ehiployers  at  the  conference  called 
by  President  Wilson  refused,  to  accept  "collective  bargaining.") 
Without  discussing  for  the  present  the*  merit  or  demerit  of  labor 
unions  it  may  be  observed  that  union  labor  leaders  openly  state  that 
they  seek  to  unionize,  or,  as  they  say,  "organize"  the  whole  industry  of 
this  country.  Those  who  do  not  contract  or  deal  with  unions  although 
they  do  not  combat  them,  insist  upon  absolute  freedom  to  both  employer 
and  employe  in  regard  to  employment  and  the  management  of  the  shops. 
The  non-union  employers  and  employes  both  stand  for  the  open  shop. 
The  unions  argue  for  the  closed  shop  or  as  the  leaders  now  insist,  "the 
right  of  collective  bargaining  through  labor  union  leaders." 

i  Every  proposition  contended  for  by  the  labor  unions  at  the  National 
Industrial  Conference  at  Washington  led  to  the  domination  of  the  shops' 
and  of  the  men  by  the  union  labor  leaders.  Every  position  taken  by 
the  other  side  centered  on  the  open  shop.  This  is  the  great  question  con 
fronting  the  American  people  and,  in  fact,  the  world  public.  From  80^ 
ner  cent  to  on  per  rent  nr  more  of  labor  in  this  country  is  nnn-^pn.  It 
is  for  them  and  the  employers  generally  and  the  large  class  of  men  and 
women  who  are  not,  strictly  speaking,  employers  or  wage  earners,  to 
determine  whether  or  not  it  is  best  for  the  whole  community  to  have 
industry  totally  organized^  Judging  by  experience,  we  believe  it  is  for 
the  best  interest  of  the  employer  and  employe  and  the  general  public  to 
have  a  business  conducted  on  the  basis  of  what  we  term  the  "open  shop/' 
thus  permitting  any  man  to  engage  in  any  line  of  employment,  or  any 
employer  to  secure  the  services  of  any  workman  on  terms  agreed  upon 
between  the  two,  whether  the  workman  is  or  is  not  connected  with  a  labor 
union.  The  people  at  large  will  finally  decide  this  question,  and  the  deci- 
sion will  be  right. 

I  think  the  fundamental  question  submitted  to  the  conference  for 
recommendation  to  industries  was  the  open  shop;  that  question  apparently 
could  not  be  decided  by  majority  vote  for  the  reason  that  the  conference 


6*2  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

was  organized  into  three  groups  called  Labor,  Employers  and  Public.  No 
affirmative  action  under  the  constitution  or  adopted  rules  could  be  taken 
except  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  three  groups,  each  of  which  voted 
by  a  majority  of  all  its  members.  It  was  necessary  to  have  such  a 
condition  as  otherwise  there  could  be  no  conference  in  which  there  would 
be  an  agreement  between  capital  and  labor,  so-called. 

The  union  labor  advocates  stand  for  collective  bargaining  through 
the  unions.  The  others  favor  collective  bargaining  through  representa- 
tives selected  by  the  employes  themselves  from  their  own  numbers. 

All  through  the  conference  whenever  the  question  of  collective  bar- 
gaining was  discussed,  it  was  apparent  that  the  union  labor  leaders  would 
not  support  any  resolution  in  favor  of  collective  bargaining  except  on  the 
basis  that  collective  bargaining  meant  bargaining  through  union  labor 
unions. 

The  unions  claim  that  collective  bargaining  through  different  forms 
of  shop  organization  made  up  of  the  employes  tends  to  limit  the  exten- 
sion of  unions  by  increasing  their  numbers.  The  non-union  employes  and 
their  employers  insist  that  collective  bargaining  through  labor  union 
means  that  employes  are  forced  to'  join  the  unions,  as  otherwise  they 
could  not  be  represented.  So  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  whole  argu- 
ment returns  to  the  main  proposition  of  open  or  closed  shop. 

In  the  conference  there  was  no  objection  offered  by  any  one  to  a  form 
of  collective  bargaining  as  between  employes  and  employers;  provided 
both  were  free  from  outside  representation  and  direction. 

The  labor  group,  so-called,  was  made  up  of  union  labor  leaders,  leav- 
ing unorganized  labor  without  special  representation.  The  same  mistake 
seems  to  have  been  made  by  a  large  portion  of  the  public  which  was 
made  throughout  the  war,  namely  that  organized  labor  really  represents 
the  workmen  or  wage  earners,  notwithstanding,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  at 
least  85  per  cent  are  non-union — not  members  of  any  union  organization. 
The  employers'  group,  in  which  were  men  first-class  in  every  respect, 
included  men  connected  with  large  and  important  lines  of  industry,  and 
also  included  several  others,  some  of  whom  at  least  should  have  been 
with  the  labor  group.  In  selecting  the  public  group  there  were  over- 
looked thousands  of  vocations,  professions,  artisans,  and  other  lines  of 
industry,  all  of  which  are  more  or  less  affected  by  the  cost  of  production, 
the  expense  of  living,  and,  therefore,  the  control  and  conditions  of  both 
labor  and  capital. 

However,  it  would  seem  there  were  many  objects  which  might  appro- 
priately have  been  considered  by  the  conference  and  conclusions  for  recom- 
mendations arrived  at  by  unanimous  consent  which  would  be  advantageous 
to  the  public  good ;  and,  therefore,  to  all  mankind,  such  conditions,  women's 
work,  child  labor,  recreation,  medical  and  surgical  treatment,  pensions, 
relief  in  times  of  stress,  and  other  educational  facilities.  With  the  right 
disposition  and  intelligence  the  public  group,  sole  survivor  of  the  confer- 
ence, can  agree  upon  recommendation  to  the  industrial  world  which  should 
be  of  substantial  benefit.  All  of  us  are  in  favor  of  these  principles  and  of 
any  others  that  may  be  suggested  which  we  believe  will  be  of  real  benefit  to 
the  wage  earners  and  to  the  general  public. 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING  63 


(From  testimony  of  Mr.  H.  W.  Dennett,  former  organizer 
for  the  International  Typographical  Union,  before  the  Industrial 
Relations  Commission,  September  14,  1914.  Page  5,780  of  the 
record.  Mr.  Dennett  bears  out  Judge  Gary's  argument,  that  the 
collective  bargaining  the  unions  now  demand  means  the  closed 
shop.) 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH  :  In  speaking  of  arbitration,  following  what  you 
said  about  arbitration,  would  you  be  willing  to  arbitrate  the  question  of 
the  closed  shop;  that  is,  whether  you  would  have  the  closed  shop  or  not? 

MR.  DENNETT:    I  would  not. 


Collective  Dealing  in  the  Plant 

(From  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commis- 
sion, April  8,  1914,  of  Mr.  Earl  Dean  Howard,  Professor  of 
Economics  at  Northwestern  University,  and  manager  of  the  labor 
department,  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx,  Chicago.  Pages  571  and 
573  -  of  the  record.  Professor  Howard  shows  the  possibility 
of  collective  bargaining  by  a  plant's  workers.) 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Prof.  Howard,  I  understand  you  have  prepared  cer- 
tain information  in  regard  to  the  working  out  of  the  trade  agreement  at 
Hart,  Schaffner's  &  Marx's.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  have  that  in  shape  to 
present  to  the  commission  in  written  form,  in  order  that  we  may  save  the 
time  of  going  into  it.  I  will  direct  your  attention  to  the  question  of  col- 
lective bargaining,  conciliation,  and  arbitration  as  it  works  out  there,  and 
your  opinion  in  regard  thereto.  First,  I  will  ask,  from  your  experience 
do  you  believe  that  collective  bargaining  is  the  proper  way  of  dealing 
between  a  firm  and  its  employes,  and  why? 

MR.  HOWARD:  I  undoubtedly  believe  it  is.  I  believe  it  is  the  only 
possible  foundation  for  an  experiment  such  as  we  have  had.  That  does 
not  necessarily  mean,  however,  that  the  employes  must  be  represented  by 
a  national  union  or  any  kind  of  a  union.  We  have  been  particularly 
fortunate  in  having  our  own  employes  in  a  rather  autonomous -organiza- 
tion, very  little  influenced  by  outside  organizations.  I  think  there  has 
been  quite  a  factor  in  progressing  in  the  experiment,  because  they  were 
rather  free  to  adopt  policies  with  those  of  the  board  of  arbitration.  But 
it  is  necessary  in  any  experiment  of  this  kind  where  the  employes  must 
be  represented  or  at  least  their  opinions  must  be  known  and  given  ex- 
pression to,  that  they  have  their  representatives  and  they  be  able  to  choose 
in  some  way,  so  that  they  will  be  properly  representative.  That  implies, 
I  think,  some  organization,  and,  of  course,  the  dealing  with  the  employes 
directly  in  any  form  whatsoever  implies  collective  bargaining,  especially 
with  reference  to  wages. 

MR.  BARNETT:  You  stated  at  the  beginning  of  your  testimony  that 
the  organization  of  the  employes  in  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  was  autono- 
mous— these  employes  organized  in  local  unions  of  the  United  Garment 
Workers. 

MR.  HOWARD:    Yes. 


64  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

MR.  BARNETT:  Are  these  local  unions  practically  composed  exclu- 
sively of  employes  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx,  or  are  there  other  employes 
of  other  firms  included  in  their  membership? 

MR.  HOWARD  :  Not  exclusively.  Simply  because  there  is  not  enough 
people  employed  by  other  firms  to  organize  a  local  they  take  them  in,  but 
they  have  very  little,  because  there  is  a  little  problem  now  developing  on 
that  account;  but  the  principle  to  decide,  after  all,  is  so  small  that  it  does 
not  make  much  difference,  and  I  think  that  it  will  gradually  work  out  that 
the  unions  will  consist  only  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  employes.  I  hope 
to  see  it  that  way.  Of  course,  I  cannot  determine  their  policy. 


"Recognition  of  the  Union" 

(From  Open  Shop  Bulletin  No.  4.  Should  employers 
"recognize  the  unions"  ?) 

It  has  been  declared  that  employers  should  negotiate  with 
the  unions;  "recognition  of  the  unions  should  be  given." 

Authors  of  such  statements  should  know  that  with  a  very 
few  exceptions  all  labor  unions  at  present  insist  that  every  agree- 
ment made  must  contain  a  provision  for  the  closed  shop;  they 
must  know  that  it  is  against  union  principles  to  arbitrate  the  ques- 
tion of  the  closed  shop. 

Unionists  themselves  admit  that  "recognition  of  the  unions" 
is  equivalent  to  the  closed  shop.  Thus,  Helen  Marot,  formerly 
executive  secretary  of  the  Women's  Trade  Union  League  of 
New  York,  in  her  book  "American  Labor  Unions,"  says  on  page 
120:  "A  union  shop,  called  outside  of  union  circles  a  'closed 
shop/  that  is,  a  shop  where  the  owner  has  agreed  to  employ 
only  members  of  a  union,  and  union  recognition,  or  the  agree- 
ment by  the  employer  to  deal  with  representatives  of  the  union, 
instead  of  with  his  employes  individually  as  to  this  or  that  con- 
dition of  employment,  are  both  demands  that  follow  logically  the 
program  of  the  American  Federation."  The  two — recognition 
and  closed  shop — are  coupled  together. 

Dr.  Frank  T.  Stockton  in  his  book,  "the  Closed  Shop  in 
American  Trade  Unions"  (page  126,  italics  ours)  says: 

"The  method  ordinarily  employed  of  unionizing  a  shop  is  to  bring 
into  membership  as  many  of  the  men  as  possible,  and  then  to  demand  of 
the  employer  that  he  recognize  the  union  and  agree  thereafter  to  employ 
only  union  members." 

Do  we  want  "recognition  of  unions"  which  compels  the  manu- 
facturer to  "employ  only  union  members?" 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING  65 


"Recognition"  Means  "Closing" 

(From  "The  Closed  Shop  vs.  The  Open  Shop,"  a  monograph 
by  Ernest  F.  Lloyd,  published  July,  1920,  by  the  National  Indus- 
trial Conference  Board.  "Recognition"  means  "Closing.") 

The  power  universally  recognized  as  residing  in  monopoly  and  the 
condition  of  irresponsibility  which  we  have  seen  pertains  in  labor  organ- 
izations, combine  to  cause  a  constant  effort  by  union  leaders  to  "clo§e" 
the  shops  under  their  influence.  The  extent  to  which  this  effort  is 
successful  is  the  extent  to  which  the  union  is  "recognized,"  and  measures 
the  degree  to  which  an  extra-legal  or  irresponsible  power  is  introduced 
into  the  management  of  the  shop.  We  are  not  here  concerned  with  the 
desirability  or  undesirability  of  any  practice  or  conduct  which  may  be 
sought  or  agreed  upon,  but  only  with  the  fact  of  its  irresponsible  source. 
Then  open  shop  does  not  therefore  preclude  the  making  of  arrangements 
with  its  workers  as  a  group.  Nor  does  it  preclude  conference  with  union 
representatives  nor  the  putting  into  effect  of  the  results  of  such  con- 
ferences. But  it  does  distinctly  maintain  the  right  to  employ  any  person 
regardless  of  his  personal  affiliations,  and  that  any  understanding  or 
agreement  shall  apply  equally  to  all  its  workers  affected.  And  commonly 
it  will  not  permit  union  propaganda  in  working  hours. 

Are  Employers  Just  in  Refusing  Recognition? 

(From  "Labor  in  Politics,"  by  Charles  Norman  Fay.  Pages 
152-154.  Mr.  Fay  here  answers  the  claim  that  employers  who 
refuse  to  "recognize  the  unions"  are  being  unjust  to  the  workers.) 

While  discussing  Organized  Labor's  catch  phrases,  it  would  be  well 
to  clarify  our  ideas  a  little  on  the  meaning  of  two  of  them,  which  are 
generally  misunderstood  by  thousands  of  men  and  women  of  heart  and 
conscience,  especially  by  the  clergy,  to  wit:  "Recognition  of  the  Union," 
and  the  "Closed  Shop."  The  union  leaders  sometimes  call  the  latter 
the  "Free  Shop" — free  of  non-union  labor,  that  is. 

An  association  of  clergymen,  the  Inter-Church  Industrial  Confer- 
ence (the  name  may  be  incorrect),  whose  secretary  is  a  Dr.  Poling,  has 
just  formulated  a  report  on  industrial  relations  and  remedies  that  sug- 
gests at  first  the  utterance  of  an  official  of  an  imaginary  clergyman's 
union  affiliated  with  the  Federation  of  Labor.  Its  perfectly  innocent 
acceptance  of  the  slogans  and  economics  of  trades-unionism,  of  the  vil- 
lainy and  greed  of  capital,  and  the  righteousness  of  Organized  Labor, 
saddens  a  man  who,  like  myself,  is  a  descendent  of  a  long  line  of  clergy- 
men, and  a  sincere  believer  in  them,  their  lives  and  their  work.  The 
Parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward  says  truly  enough  that  "the  children  of 
this  world  are  in  their  generation  wiser  than  the  children  of  light" 
Fortunately  for  the  latter  and  for  all  of  us,  they  can  and  do  depend 
upon  the  conscience  and  the  constant  material  support  of  the  very 
>:men  whom  they  so  fluently  condemn,  for  the  safe  existence  of  their 
churches  and  their  noble  charities.  But  they  certainly  do  not  compre- 
hend the  practical  game  played  by  "Labor." 

"Recognition  of  the  Union"  means  to  many  good  Christians  something 
like  good  manners,  or  human  courtesy,  to  working-men;   and  refusal  to 


66  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

"recognize"  is  stigmatized  as  autocratic  hauteur,  as  contemptuous  disre- 
gard of  the  "aspirations  of  labor."  It  is  nothing  of  the  kind.  "Recognition 
of  organized  labor"  and  the  "closed  shop"  are  identical,  and  mean  that 
the  employer  enters  regularly  into  contract  with  the  unions  through 
their  officials,  usually  in  writing,  which  binds  the  former  to  employ 
labor  only  through  the  latter,  and  to  close  the  shop  to  the  non-union  man. 
No  matter  how  badly  a  non-union  man  needs  work,  or  how  good  a 
workman  he  is,  or  how  much  the  employer  wants  to  hire  him,  he  can 
get  employment  in  that  shop  only  by  first  joining  the  local  union  of  his 
craft,  signing  its  constitution,  submitting  to  the  authority  of  its  officers, 
and  most  important  of  all,  paying  the  initiation  fee  and  dues  involved. 
Then  only  a  union  card  is  issued  to  him,  and  he  can  get  a  job  in  a 
closed  shop. 

Many  thousands  of  laboring  men  prefer  their  independence  and 
refuse  to  be  held  up  for  union  dues.  Many  hundreds  of  employers, 
though  the  majority  are  indifferent,  refuse  to  contract  for  the  closed 
shop,'  some  as  a  mere  matter  of  business  policy,  but  many  more,  in  my 
observation,  because  they  refuse  to  betray  the  constitutional  right  of  every 
man,  employer  or  laborer  to  hire  or  work  without  the  dictation  of  any 
other  man  or  group  of  men.  One  of  the  largest  employers  in  Boston 
lately  said  to  me  that  he  would  lose  every  dollar  he  had  invested,  and 
if  necessary  would  die  for  the  "open  shop,"  as  a  true  American.  He 
employs  thousands  of  men  without  regard  to  union  or  non-union  mem- 
bership. My  own  feeling  was  just  the  same  when  I  was  an  employer, 
that  I  would  never  be  party  to  taking  advantage  of  the  necessity  of  a 
workingman,  to  compel  him  to  pay  tribute  to  a  union,  in  order  to  qualify 
for  employment  in  my  shop.  I  have  shown  elsewhere  how  in  the  course 
of  a  strike  in  my  own  factory  we  discovered  a  strong  preference  among 
workers  in  Chicago  for  the  strictly  non-union  shop.  The  sentiment  for 
liberty  prevailed. 

Nevertheless,  if  it  is  after  all  a  matter  of  business  interest  to  close 
his  shop  to  non-union  labor,  or  to  union  labor  or  to  maintain  an  open 
shop  to  both,  he  has  an  absolute  right  to  do  so,  and  to  put  sentiment 
aside.  I  cannot  believe,  however,  that  any  intelligent  and  conscientious 
clergyman,  who  ought  by  virtue  of  his  profession  to  put  sentiment  ahead 
of  business  considerations,  would,  if  he  understood  the  matter,  favor 
forcing  the  free  workman  against  his  will  to  wear  the  collar  or  pay  the 
tribute  decreed  for  him  by  the  local  union.  Our  courts  of  highest  resort 
have  uniformly  restrained  the  attempt  to  monopolize  labor  by  virtue  of 
"collective  bargaining"  and  the  "closed  shop,"  as  an  invasion  of  consti- 
tutional right.  I  am  glad  to  accept  Judge  Gary's  maintenance  of  the  open 
shop  in  the  great  steel  industry,  as  dictated  by  love  of  American  freedom 
as  well  as  sound  business  judgment.  I  would  urge  the  pulpit  not  ignor- 
antly  to  condemn  the  law  and  the  bench,  but  to  study  with  open  mind 
as  well  as  open  heart  the  intent  and  the  result  of  bringing  all  industry 
within  the  grasp  of  a  labor  autocracy,  the  dream  of  Organized  Labor. 


(Testimony    before,  the    Industrial    Relations    Commission, 
April  7,  1914,  of  Mr.  Joseph  F.  Valentine,  president  of  the  Inter- 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING  67 


national  Moulders'  Union.  Do  the  closed  shop  unions  make 
"requests"  or  "demands"?) 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  Mr.  Briggs  also  made  the  further  state- 
ment that  the  unions  do  not  come  to  the  employer  in  a  concilatory  spirit, 
but  they  come  demanding  limitations  of  apprentices,  non-introduction  of 
machinery,  closed  shop,  etc.  Will  you  be  good  enough  to  make  answer  to 
that? 

MR.-  VALENTINE  :  We  may  have  made  demands  upon  the  foundrymen 
for  increases  of  wages  and  other  things.  Some  people  call  them  demands, 
and  some  of  them  call  them  requests.  I  think  Mr.  Briggs  is  right  when 
he  used  the  word  "demand,"  because  that  is  what  it  means. 


Bargain  or  Dictate? 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Grant  Fee,  President  of  the  San 
Francisco  Building  Trades  Employers  Association,  before  the 
Industrial  Relations  Commis'sion,  September  i,  1914.  Mr.  Fee 
argues  that  collective  bargaining  as  the  closed  shoppers  wish  it  is 
collective  dictation.) 

There  is  no  collective  bargaining  in  this  city,  as  I  understand  the 
term.  The  system  in  vogue  in  this  city  is :  The  unions  pass  a  so-called 
law  raising  the  scale  of  wages  or  changing  the  working  conditions;  that 
is  referred  to  the  building  trades  council  for  their  approval;  if  approved 
by  the  building  trades  council,  it  is  put  in  force;  sometimes  notice  is 
given  and  again  no  notice  is  given  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  building 
trades  council  say  that  one  of  their  laws  is  that  a  ninety-days'  notice 
must  be  given  before  a  change  in  wage  or  working  conditions  is  put  into 
effect.  The  employer  has  no  voice  whatever  in  making  the  above-stated 
rules;  the  employer's  part  consists  entirely  in  making  what  resistance 
he  can;  this  resistance  has  met  with  no  degree  of  success,  excepting 
cases  of  housesmiths'  trouble  in  the  matter  of  eight-hour  day  in  structural 
shops.  Collective  bargaining,  as  I  understand  the  term,  presumes  discus- 
sion and  consultation  by  the  parties  concerned  before  agreements  are 
made.  Here  there  is  no  such  discussion.  The  so-called  agreement  is 
the  ultimatium  of  one  party  which  the  other  party  has  no  choice  but  to 
accept. 


Individual  Bargaining 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Alba  B.  Johnson,  President  of  the 
Baldwin  Locomotive  Works,  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Com- 
mission, June  24,  1914.  Pages  2,833  an^  2*834  of  the  record. 
Mr.  Johnson  may  be  said  to  express  the  views  of  some  employers 
who  oppose  collective  bargaining.  His  opposition  is  based  upon 
the  restrictive  practice  of  the  closed  shop  unions.) 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:    Well,  if  I  were  to  make  application 
at  your  works  then,  you  would  make  the  bargain  with  me  individually? 


68  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

MR.  JOHNSON:     Yes,  sir;  individually. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK  :  And  you  would  pay  me  what  you 
think  I  am  worth. 

MiR.  JOHNSON:    Yes,  sir.  .  . 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:  So  that  would  be  an  individual  bar- 
gain. Now,  I  take  it  from  your  testimony  that  you  think  you  can  get 
the  best  results  from  individual  bargaining? 

MR.  JOHNSON:    Yes,  sir. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK  :  Rather  than  from  collective  bargain- 
ing? 

MR.  JOHNSON:    Yes,  sir. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:  That  is,  you  say  that  you  think  it 
is  the  wisest  course  so  far  as  your  industry  is  concerned,  not  to  recog- 
nize or  to  deal  with  organized  labor? 

MR.  JOHNSON:     That  is  a  fact. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:  Doubtless  you  have  reached  that 
conclusion  as  the  result  of  careful  thought  and  consideration  and  the 
commission  would  be  very  glad  to  know,  Mr.  Johnson,  what  were  the 
reasons  that  have  led  you  to  reach  the  conclusion  that  it  was  not  wise 
for  you  to  do  collective  bargaining  and  to  recognize  organized  labor 
and  to  deal  with  organized  labor. 

MR.  JOHNSON  :  We  believe  that  organized  labor  levels  downward. 
We  believe  that  it  deprives  the  earnest,  ambitious  boy  of  a  chance  to 
rise  out  of  his  position. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:  In  other  words,  you  think  it  makes 
for  the  dead  level? 

MR.  JOHNSON  :  I  think  it  makes  for  the  dead  level  and  we  think 
that  it  destroys  ambition  and  initiative. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:  For  that  reason  primarily,  and  per- 
haps there  are  other  reasons  that  you  may  want  to  suggest. 

MR.  JOHNSON:  We  believe  that  it  is  impossible  in  a  unionized  shop, 
in  a  shop  having  organized  labor^  to  reach  the  efficiency  which  is  possi- 
ble under  non-union  labor;  that  is,  where  the  employer  is  free  to  deal 
with  each  employe — individual  bargaining. 

ACTING.  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:  And  sp  you  operate  what  I  presume 
is  generally  called  an  open  shop? 

MR.  JOHNSON:    Yes,  sir. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK  :  Now,  if  I  should  come  to  your 
works  wearing  a  union  button,  how  would  that  affect  my  chances  of 
getting  a  job  if  I  was  fit  otherwise? 

MR.  JOHNSON  :     It  would  not  affect  it  at  all. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:     It  would  not? 

MR.  JOHNSON:     No,  sir. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK  :  You  don't  discriminate  because  I 
happen  to  be  a  union  man? 

MR.  JoHNsqN :  No ;  but  after  you  were  employed  we  then  found 
you  were  inefficient,  you  would  not  stay. 


COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING  69 


ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:  But  so  far  as  you  know,  Mr.  John- 
son, the  question  of  unionism  is  not  an  issue  in  the  matter  of  employment? 

MR.  JOHNSON:     The  question  of  unionism  is  not  an  issue. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:  You  employ  men  on  their  merits 
regardless  of  whether  or  not  they  are  unionists? 

MR.  JOHNSON  :    Yes,  sir. 


70  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Irresponsibility  of  Unions 

One  of  the  objections  employers  have  to  the  closed  shop  is 
that  it  asks  them  to  make  agreements  with  organizations  which 
are  not  financially  responsible  for  the  aggreements  they  sign. 

The  union  is  in  the  great  majority  of  states  in  no  way  financi- 
ally responsible,  as  an  organization,  for  damages  it  may  cause  in 
any  controversy.  It  may  have  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars 
in  the  union  treasury,  but  these  funds  may  not  be  seiz'ed  to  pay 
for  damages  caused  by  the  acts  of  the  union.  Their  official  acts 
carry  no  official  financial  risk.  The  employer  who  can  be  sued 
in  the  courts,  and  who  is  financially  responsible  is  asked  to  make 
a  binding  agreement  with  an  organization  which  cannot  be  sued 
and  which  is  not  financially  responsible. 

This  absence  of  all  financial  responsibility  means  that  there 
is  no  way  by  which  contracts  with  the  unions  may  be  enforced. 
If  labor  unions  demand  the  right  to  bargain  collectively  and  to 
make  contracts  with  employers,  they  should  be  held  to  the  observ- 
ance of  their  contracts  just  as  strictly  as  any  business  man.  The 
very  absence  of  power  to  enforce  the  contracts  means  that  the 
unions  will  not  be  so  scrupulous  about  keeping  them.  This,  of 
course  is  not  true  of  all  unions  and  all  union  members,  but  during 
the  past  few  years  union  leaders  who  wished  to  abide  by  the 
contracts  have  been  termed  "old  fogies"  and  their  advice  has 
been  disregarded.  Witness  the  longshoremen  and  printing  strikes 
in  New  York  City.  Likewise  the  "outlaw"  railroad  strike  which 
paralyzed  transportation  for  a  considerable  period.  It  is  esti- 
mated that  173,000,000  bushels  of  grain  were  held  on  the  farms 
and  in  country  and  terminal  elevators  in  the  Northwest,  unable 
to  be  shipped  to  market  because  of  the  railroad  tie-up.  The 
farmer  was  unable  to  ship  millions  of  dollars  of  livestock.  These 
things  help  explain  why  the  National  Grange  now  endorses  the 
Open  Shop. 

Although  the  Executive  Board  of  the  Iron  Workers'  Union 
used  the  funds  of  that  union  to  carry  on  a  campaign  of  dynamite, 
none  of  the  injured  contractors  could  recover  damages  from  the 
union  treasury. 

Just  one  instance  more.  The  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  attempted  to  unionize  the  coal  mines  of  Arkansas.  As 
a  result  damages  which  their  own  papers  estimated  at  from 


IRRESPONSIBILITY  OF  UNIONS  71 

$200,000  to  $500,000  were  caused.  The  United  Mine  Workers 
was  sued  in  the  courts ;  practically  its  sole  defense  was  that  since 
it  is  unincorporated  it  is  beyond  the  reach  of  the  law.  This  case, 
known  as  the  Coronado  case,  is  now  pending  for  final  decision 
before  the  United  States  Supreme  Court;  it  is  claimed  its  vast 
funds  cannot  be  made  to  pay  for  the  damages  caused,  solely 
because  the  Union  has  not  chosen  to  incorporate. 

No  Restraints  Imposed  on  Labor  Combinations 
Mr.  James  A.  Emery;  counsel  for  the  National  Association 
of  Manufacturers,  addressed  the  Brooklyn  Municipal  Club 
November  23,  1920.  After  describing  the  Federal  and  state  laws 
designed  to  control  and  regulate  the  activities  of  corporations, 
Mr.  Emery  said : 

"No  such  regulation,  however,  exists  for  the  combinations  of  laborers 
in  unions.  These  combinations  have  amassed  great  wealth,  great  power 
and  great  influence.  An  interesting  problem  is  whether,  with  their  possi- 
bilities for  good  and  evil,  they  will  also  yield  to  some  form  of  regulation 
against  misuse  and  the  public  interest.  The  fact  is  that  the  closed  shop 
principle  among  organized  laborers,  surrenders  to  nothing — to  no  extremity 
of  national  condition,  to  no  emergency  of  industrial  necessity.  It  breeds 
an  antagonism  to  everything  opposed  to  its  philosophy.  It  is  against 
judicial  decisions  when  they  do  not  conform  to  it;  it  comes  in  inevitable 
conflict  with  the  law,  to  which  it  refuses  to  bow." 

Contracts  Violated 

The  Philadelphia  Board  of  Trade  on  November  15,  1920, 
unanimously  adopted  the  report  of  its  Open  Shop  Committee 
which  among  other  things,  said: 

"The  courts  have  emphasized  as  fact  the  assertion  that  unionized 
labor  has  thoroughly  discredited  its  standing  in  the  community  by  repeated 
violations  of  its  contracts." 

The  Clothing  Manufacturers'  Association  of  Boston,  voted 
on  December  6,  1920,  to  abrogate  all  contracts  with  the  Amalga- 
mated Clothing  Workers  of  America.  The  Employers  Associa- 
tion of  Eastern  Massachusetts,  reviewing  the  announcement,  says: 

"The  union  has  broken  agreements  at  any  time  it  suited  their  fancy, 
their  business  agents  have  been  unscrupulous,  untrustworthy  and  have 
encouraged  deliberate  restrictions  of  output  amounting  at  times  to  50 
per  cent,  which  has  caused  the  manufacturer  serious  loss,  although  the 
basic  agreement  prohibits  all  such  actions." 

Unions  Admit  Evil 

We  will  first  show  that  labor  leaders  have  admitted  that  if 
contracts  are  not  kept  employers  are  justified  in  refusing  to  deal 
with  the  organizations  at  fault. 


72  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Then  we  will  show  that  unions  actually  are  not  responsible 
financially  for  their  agreements  and  that  in  many  cases  they  do 
violate  their  signed  agreements. 

It  is  not  to  be  understood  that  we  claim  all  unions  are 
contract-breakers.  Nor  do  all  unions  restrict  apprenticeship  or 
limit  production.  But  these  practices  are  so  common  and  seem 
to  be  so  intensified  by  the  adoption  of  the  closed  shop  that  we 
cannot  but  connect  them  as  parts  of  the  closed  shop  system. 

Wise  Men  Profit  by  Experience 

(Testimony  of  Mr.  John  R.  Lawson,  member  of  the  inter- 
national executive  board  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America,  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission,  February 
3,  1915-) 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK  :  Let  us  get  it  straight.  If  you  were  an 
employer  and  knew  that  the  I.  W.  W.'s  were  contract  breakers,  that  they 
did  not  make  any  secret  of  it,  but  shouted  it  from  the  housetops  and 
stated  it  frankly  and  candidly  and  openly,  would  you  enter  into  a  contract 
with  them? 

MR.  LAWSON:  I  think  like  this,  about  any  organization,  just  the  same 
as  I  feel  about  the  operators,  if  their  word  is  not  good  I  am  chary  about 
accepting  their  word  after  they  break  it  once,  I  agree  to  that. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  A  very  wise  rule,  Mr.  Lawson.  Now, 
.just  as  I,  for  example,  from  my  knowledge,  look  upon  the  I.  W.  W.'s, 
it  is  very  evident  that  the  operators  of  Colorado  looked  upon  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America — 

MR.  LAWSON   (interrupting)  :     Well — 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK  (interrupting)  :  Pardon  me.  As  evidence 
that  in  their  opinion  that  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  were 
either  unwilling  or  unable  to  keep  their  contracts,  they  submitted  to  this 
commission  the  experience  of  Pennsylvania  mine  owners,  who  claimed 
that  in  a  hundred  cases  the  workers  had  deliberately  broken  their  con- 
tracts and  gone  out  on  strike  against  their  agreement. 

Mr.  Lawson,  will  you  tell  what  you  know  about  a  journal  called 
the  United  Mine  Workers'  Journal f 

MR.  LAWSON  :  That  is  the  official  organ  of  the  United  Mine  Workers 
of  America. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  You  remember  that  when  you  were  on 
the  witness  stand  the  other  day,  Mr.  Lawson,  I  read  to  you  out  of  the 
records  of  the  hearings  a  document  that  had  been  placed  in  evidence  by 
the  mine  owners  of  Colorado  which  contained  a  set  of  resolutions  adopted 
by  the  miners  of  Pennsylvania? 

MR.  LAWSON:    Yes,  sir. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  And  you  will  recall  that  those  resolu- 
tions adopted  by  the  mine  owners  charged  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  in  Pennsylvania  as  having  broken  their  contract,  and  that  there 
had  been  a  hundred  strikes 'in  violation  of  their  contracts? 


IRRESPONSIBILITY  OF  UNIONS  73 

MR.  LAWSON  :    Yes  that  was  the  charge  as  I  recollect. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  I  have  here  a  communication  sent  to  the 
United  Mine  Workers'  Journal  by  Mr.  W.  O.  Smith,  who  from  all  I  can 
learn  is  ex-president  or  ex-chairman  of  the  executive  committee  of  the 
Kentucky  district  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 

Union  Head  Admits  Contract  Violation 

Now,  Mr.  Smith,  in  sending  his  communication  to  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  Journal  has  this  to  to  say  in  the  matter  of  contract 
breaking.  He  says  among  other  things  (reading)  : 

"For  many  years  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  has  preached 
and  practiced  the  doctrine  of  inviolability  of  contracts,  and  by  doing  so 
has  won  the  respect  and  confidence  of  the  general  public — a  mighty 'influ- 
ence, affecting  all  industrial  disputes  and  conflicts.  But  for  the  past  two 
or  three  years  this  respect  and  confidence  has  been  waning,  not  because 
the  officials  have  failed  to  do  their  duty,  but  because  of  the  indifference 
of  the  conservative  members  of  our  unions  and  the  activity  of  the  later 
radical  element,  which  is  responsible  for  the  greatest  menace  that  has 
ever  threatened  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America — the  local  strike. 
During  the  past  two  or  three  years  the  international,  as  well  as  the  dis- 
trict and  sub-district  officials  have  been  confronted  with  many  complexing 
problems  some  of  which  seem  to  threaten  the  very  life  of  the  organiza- 
tion; but  I  believe  I  am  safe  in  saying  that  no  problem  has  given  them 
as  much  concern  as  the  problem  of  local  strikes  in  violation  of  agree- 
ments. 

"Thousands  of  dollars  are  expended  every  year  in  the  effort  to 
organize  the  250,000  non-union  miners  in  the  United  States,  while  hun- 
dreds of  our  members  go  on  strikes  almost  every  day  in  absolute  inex- 
cusable violation  of  existing  agreements." 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  I  simply  want  to  correct  your  point  of 
view,  Mr.  Lawson,  in  relation  to  the  questions  that  were  put  to  you  on 
the  matter  of  contract  breaking.  It  is  not  the  contention  of  anybody  that 
I  have  heard  or  anything  I  have  read  that  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  start  out  deliberately  and  intentionally  like  the  I.  W.  W.  to 
break  contracts.  It  is  conceded  that  the  aim  and  hope  and  the  desire  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  is  to  observe  contracts. 

MR.  LAWSON  :     Yes,  sir. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  But  the  facts  that  have  been  presented 
would  indicate  that  in  a  goodly  number  of  instances  they  have  been  unable 
to  make  good ;  they  have  not  been  able  to  deliver  the  goods. 

MR.  LAWSON:     Purely  of  a  local  character. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:     But  widespread. 

MR.  LAWSON  :  Over  a  territory  embracing  the  United  States  and 
Canada. 


74  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Refuses  to  Condemn  Practice 

(From  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commis- 
sion, December  29,  1913,  of  Mrs.  Raymond  Robins,  president  or 
the  National  Women's  Trade  League.  Page  316  of  the  record. 
There  is  here  no  strong  condemnation  of  contract-breaking.) 

COMMISSIONER  BALLARD:  If  a  manufacturer's  plant  becomes  organ- 
ized and  his  employes  join  a  trades-union  and  all  of  his  employes  are 
members  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  would  you  consider  it 
fair  on  the  part  of  his  w'orkmen  or  fair  on  the  part  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  if  they  had  a  quarrel  with  some  other  concern,  per- 
haps a  hundred  miles  away  or  ten  miles  away,  and  if  this  man's  plant 
should  be  closed,  simply  in  order  to  hurt  the  other  people? 

MRS.  ROBINS  :  I  think  the  sympathetic  strike  is  one  of  the  greatest 
weapons  in  the  hands  of  the  laboring  people. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  Would  you  think  it  morally  right  for  a 
union  to  go  on  a  sympathetic  strike  when  it  was  working  under  a  contract 
with  an  employer?  In  other  words,  would  you  think  it  morally  right  for 
the  union  to  violate  its  contract  in  order  to  go  out  on  a  sympathetic 
strike  ? 

MRS.  ROBINS  :  I  do  not  like  breaking  contracts,  but  sometimes  you 
have  got  to  break  them. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  You  justify  the  breaking  of  contracts, 
do  you? 

MRS.  ROBINS:     That  depends  upon  conditions. 


Strict  Accountability  Needed 

(Testimony  of  Mr.  John  Mitchell,  before  the  Industrial  Rela- 
tions Commission,  February  I,  1915.  Pages  8069,  8070,  8071, 
8072,  8073  and  8080  of  the  record.  Mr.  Mitchell  from  1898  to 
1908  was  president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  and 
from  1898  to  1913  vice-president  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor.  Mr.  Mitchell  asserts  that  employers  should  insist  upon 
the  utmost  responsibility  for  agreement-keeping  by  the  unions.) 

MR.  MITCHELL:  I  think  it  would.  I  may  say  I  am  not  an  advocate — 
it  is  a  subject  that  I  have  not  specialized  in  at  all,  but  I  believe  in  democ- 
racy— the  general  terms  of  democracy  I  believe  in.  In  other  words,  I 
believe  in  government  by  the  people,  and  I  believe  it  is  wise  to  place  upon 
people  the  greatest  measure  of  responsibility,  just  as  I  believe  it  is  in  the 
industrial  world.  I  believe  in  industry  by  agreement,  and  if  I  were  an 
employer  in  making  a  contract  with  a  labor  union  I  would  place  upon  the 
union  every  bit  of  responsibility  I  could.  Too  many  employers  seek  to 
reserve  to  themselves  the  responsibility  they  should  place  on  the  working- 
men.  In  making  a  contract,  I  say,  I  would  give  them  all  the  responsibility 
I  could  put  upon  them,  and  then  I  would  hold  them  to  a  strict  account- 
ability for  the  discharge  of  their  responsibilities. 


IRRESPONSIBILITY  OF  UNIONS  75 

No  Legal  Responsibility 

(Excerpts  from  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations 
Commission,  May  17,  1915,  of  Mr.  Walter  Drew,  Counsel  for 
the  National  Erectors'  Association.) 

The  first  great  legal  fact  in)  connection  with  the  trade-union,  because 
of  its  being  a  voluntary  unincorporated  association,  is  that  it  is  not  legally 
^responsible  in  a  suit  at  law  for  injuries  which  it  ma'y  unlawfully  inflict 
upon  others^  A  great  national  trade-union  may  develop  the  most  com- 
pact form  of  organization  and  government.  Its  thousands  of  members 
and  hundreds  of  locals  scattered  all  over  the  country  may  be  knit  to- 
gether by  the  most  effective  machinery  for  purposes  of  promoting  the 
interests  and  purposes  of  its  membership.  It  may  collect  vast  sums  and 
gather  them  into  its  treasury.  This  vast  power  of  compact  organization, 
aided  by  equally  vast  financial  resources,  may  be  used  by  its  properly 
delegated  officers  in  ways  which  are,  under  accepted  principles  of  law, 
contrary  to  the  rights  of  other  members  of  society.  It  is  the  power  of 
the  organization,  the  money  of  the  organization,  the  common  purpose  of 
the  organization  as  distinct  from  the  individual  purposes  of  its  members, 
and  the  directing  intelligence  of  the  organzation  which  may  inflict  this 
unlawful  injury  upon  some  third  person,  and  yet  the  injured  person,  has 
no  action  at  law  against  this  same  organization  for  the  damages  he  may 
suffer.  He  is  left,  if  he  so  choose,  to  seek  out  the  hundreds  or  thousands 
of  individual  members  of  the  organization  and  to  begin  action  against 
them!  as  individuals.  The  mere  description  of  such  a  legal  remedy  indi- 
cates that  for  practical  purposes  it  is  no  remedy  at  all. 

As  an  example,  those  contractors  and  owners,  whose  work  was  des- 
troyed by  the  hundred  or  more  dynamite  explosions,  caused  by  the  Struc- 
tural Iron  Workers'  Union,  can  not  recover  a  dollar  in  damages  from 
that  union.  The  evidence  is  full  and  clear  that  these  explosions  were 
planned  by  the  executive  officers  of  the  union,  that  the  moneys  to  carry 
them  on  were  voted  by  the  executive  board  of  the  union  and  drawn  from 
th  union  treasury  and  expended  under  the  direction  of  members  of  the 
same  executive  board.  Yet  that  same  treasury  can  not  be  reached  by  any 
known  action  at  law  to  recover  damages  for  the  injury  inflicted. 

In  the  famous  Danbury  hatters'  case,  so  widely  heralded  as  a  new  and 
unprecedented  advance  in  trade-union  liability,  it  seems  not  to  be  gen- 
erally known  that  the  original  action  was  begun  against  hundreds  of  the 
individual  members  of  the  hatters'  union.  The  judgment  obtained  is  not 
against  the  union,  but  against  individual  members  thereof,  and  unless 
the  judgment  is  paid  by  the  unions  in  order  to  protect  these  individual 
members,  or  is  paid  by  Congress,  in  acordance  with  the  request  in  that 
behalf  made,  it  will  devolve  upon  the  plaintiff  in  the  Danbury  hatters' 
case  to  collect  his  judgment  from  these  hundreds  of  individual  defendants 
as  best  "he  may;  and  proceedings  for  that  purpose  have  been  recently 
instituted. 

While,  therefore,  the  labor  organization  may  develop  an  immense 
power  for  inflicting  injury  and  ruin  upon  others,  it  occupies  a  unique 
position  of  possessing  absolute  legal  immunity  for  the  injury  thus  inflicted. 


76  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Power  without  corresponding  responsibility — this  fact  is,  in  my  judgment, 
the  one  most  important  fundamental  fact  connected  with  the  legal  status 
of  the  union.  What  human  institution  can  successfully  endure  possession 
of  power  without  responsibility?  What  more  dangerous  millstone  to  be 
hung  about  the  neck  of  a  labor  organization  in  its  upward  climb  to  its 
proper  place  in  society  and  in  industry?  In  recent  history,  what  one 
thing  has  retarded  the  growth  and  development  of  trade-unionism  along 
right  and  proper  lines  so  much  as  the  reckless  and  lawless  conduct  of 
those  who  have  achieved  its  leadership,  and  why  is  not  the  possession  of 
immense  power  without  corresponding  responsibility  the  direct  cause  of 
reckless  leadership? 

(The  effects  of  such  lack  of  responsibility  are  pointed  out 
by  Ernest  F.  Lloyd  in  his  monograph  "The  Closed  vs.  The  Open 
Shop,"  published  by  the  National  Industrial  Conference  Board.) 
Hence,  the  irresponsibility  of  the  union  organization  does  not  stop 
with  the  representatives  of  the  local  union  of  the  trade  to  which  the 
immediate  workers  belong.  Each  such  step  in  removal  thus  tends  to 
reduce  the  responsibility,  lessen  the  possibility  of  enforcement  of  agree- 
ments and  increase  the  opportunities  for  the  exercise  of  arbitrary  authority 
and  power.  Yet,  again,  such  removals  introduce  laxness  of  discipline, 
mutual  jealousies  among  leaders  of  complimentary  groups,  involving 
jurisdictional  conflicts  and  a  vast  confusion,  ill  will,  and  opportunity  for 
factional  contests,  all  affecting  morale,  production  and  continuity  of 
operation. 

Closed  Shop  Experience  of  Employers 

The  views  of  Mr.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Skinner,  which  follow, 
give  the  opinions  of  men  with  wide  experience.  They  represent 
two  large  and  influential  organizations  of  employers. 

(From  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commis- 
sion, July  21  and  July  22,  1914,  of  Mr.  Dudley  Taylor,  general 
counsel  for  the  Employers  Association  of  Chicago. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  What  is  the  attitude,  if  any,  of  your  association 
toward  the  organization  of  workers;  of  your  membership  towards  trade- 
unions  ? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Generally  speaking,  it  has  seemed  to  me  that  the  mem- 
bers of  our  association  are  inclined  to  liberal,  fair  views  and  to  appre- 
ciate the  justice  of  organization.  From  my  talk  with  them  I  am  satisfied 
that  they  would  prefer  to  do  business  with  organizations  of  labor  provided 
they  were  reasonably  safeguarded  so  that  they  could  do  business  under 
safe  conditions  and  not  have  their  business  disrupted  by  some  unjust  de- 
mands, some  whim  or  caprice.  If  they  could  only  feel  that  there  was 
stability  enough  that  the  union  organization  was  conservatively  directed 
and  managed,  I  think  there  would  be  no  complaint,  as  the  employer  is 
looking,  above  all  things,  for  stability.  He  must  know  that  his  business 
can  go  ahead.  I  don't  think  he  has  any  quarrel  with  organizations  as 
such. 


IRRESPONSIBILITY  OF  UNIONS  77 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Will  you  give  to  us,  as  briefly  as  you  can,  your 
opinion  in  regard  to  trade-unions? 

No  Penalty  for  Damages 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I  find  a  great  powerful  organization  daily  becoming 
more  powerful — that  is  the  labor  organization.  It  has  a  power  to 
enforce  not  its  requests  but  its  demands.  A  single  employer  can't  stand 
against  it.  It  is  a  question  of  standing  the  gaff,  or  stand  the  loss  not 
only  of  profits,  but  standing  the  deficit  in  the  conduct  of  the  business 
perhaps  for  weeks  or  months.  I  say,  assuming  for  the  purpose  of  the 
argument,  that  the  employer  happens  to  be  right,  where  is  his  remedy 
against  that  powerful  organization?  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  these  people,  forming  that  sort  of  labor  organization, 
are  irresponsible  financially,  they  can  move  about  the  city,  be  lost 
to  sight.  You  talk  about  damage  suits,  you  can't  get  a  damage  suit  to  a 
hearing  for  possibly  one  or  two  years.  You  get  a  judgment;  it  is  worth 
nothing,  it  is  not  any  remedy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  loss  is  continuing 
during  all  of  that  time.  Now,  I  find  that  when  banks,  as  responsible  insti- 
tutions, seek  to  do  business  in  a  community,  they  are  required  to  give  some 
token  of  their  responsibility  and  satisfy  the  state  auditor;  that  is  right,  I 
believe.  They  have  to  show  their  funds ;  their  funds  are  under  state  con- 
trol. The  same  thing  is  true  of  insurance  companies;  but  here,  we  will 
say  for  the  purpose  of  the  same  argument,  is  a  powerful  organization 
using  its  funds  for  the  purpose  of  smashing  another  man's  business,  we 
will  say,  unjustly,  and  those  funds  are  not  subject  to  any  control.  You 
can't  in  this  State  sue  at  law  a  labor  union,  because  there  is  no  statute 
which  renders  a  labor  union  liable  in  a  suit  against  it.  You  have  got  to 
sue  its  members  as  partners;  you  can't  get  anywhere  on  that.  You 
can't  get  their  funds  into  the  court's  control,  the  funds  which  are  being 
used  against  you  all  of  this  time.  Now,  that  is  the  sort  of  thing,  Mr. 
Thompson,  we,  in  the  vernacular,  are  up  against  all  the  time  in  this  city. 

What  Is  Needed 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  George  N.  Skinner,  president  of 
the  Employers  Association  of  Washington,  before  the  Indus- 
trial Relations  Commission,  August  10,  1914.  Page  4158.) 

MR.  SKINNER:  My  employment  is  entirely  open  shop.  In  fact,  I  never 
have  asked,  however,  whether  my  people  employed  are  union  or  non- 
union men.  In  the  boat  business,  that  I  am  in,  the  engineers  are  pretty 
generally  organized,  but  I  have  never  taken  occasion  to  ask  my  office  to 
employ  only  non-union  or  union  men.  They  are  never  taken  into  account. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  What  suggestions  have  you  to  make  to  this  condi- 
tion, as  to  the  way  trade-unions  should  be  organized  so  as  to  be  properly 
conducted  ? 

MR.  SKINNER:  I  think  that  the  conduct  of  the  labor  unions  should  be 
entirely  within  the  scope  of  the  man  that  works,  the  man  that  is  inter- 
ested in  his  labor,  and  I  think  that  they  should  be  made  responsible  on 
both  sides,  and  that  both  sides  might  have  some  of  it. 


78  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

MR.  THOMPSON:  What  form  of  responsibility?  Have  you  given 
thought  to  that— what  that  might  be? 

MR.  SKINNER:  The  law  should  prescribe  that  anything  that  the  labor 
unions  entered  into,  if  they  entered  into  a  contract  with  the  employer, 
that  they  must  carry  it  out  or  be  penalized  financially.  They  would  have 
to  organize,  take  out  a  charter,  and  pay  a  sufficient  amount  of  capital  to 
guarantee  the  enforcement  of  their  contract,  the  living  up  to  the  contract. 

Contract  Breaking  Admitted 

(Extracts  from  address  of  John  A.  Moffitt,  Commissioner  of 
Conciliation,  United  States  Department  of  Labor,  before  the 
American  Erectors'  Association,  March  9,  1915.  On  pages  10919 
and  10920  of  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commis- 
sion. Here  is  a  clear  statement  of  official  union  admission  of 
contract-breaking. ) 

As  my  card  would  indicate,  I  am  representing  the  United  States 
Department  of  Labor.  On  or  about  the  27th  day  of  February,  Mr. 
Secretary  Wilson  of  the  department  was  advised  that  a  strike  in  the  oil 
fields  of  Oklahoma  and  Texas,  involving  approximately  1,000  men,  was 
in  vogue,  and  he  was  petitioned  by  the  officials  of  the  Brotherhood  of 
Boiler  Makers  and  Iron  Ship  Builders,  requesting  that  he  use  the  good 
offices  of  his  department  to  bring  about  an  adjustment,  if  possible,  of  the 
strike. 

The  Secretary  was  advised  that  the  members  of  the  American  Erectors' 
Association  met  frequently  in  the  city  of  Pittsburgh,  at  the  Fort  Pitt 
Hotel,  and  he  directed  me  to  come  here  and  take  this  matter  up  with 
you  gentlemen,  to  see  if  something  could  not  be  done;  and  if  there 
was  not  some  general  grounds  upon  which  you  could  meet  the  representa- 
tives of  the  boiler  makers,  looking  toward  an  amicable  adjustment  of  this 
strike. 

I  do  not  know  that  I  have  anything  to  say  other  than  that  the 
general  officers  of  the  boiler  makers  have  informed  Secretary  Wilson  and 
the  Secretary  has  informed  me,  that  they  are  willing  to  make  any 
honorable  settlement  ^ that  will  be  beneficial  to  both  sides,  if  a  conference 
can  be  brought  about  between  representatives  of  your  organization  and 
a  committee  of  their  organization. 

I  understand  that  the  members  of  your  organization  made  contracts 
with  their  men  who  work  in  the  field,  and  they  agree  that  these  contracts 
from  time  to  time  are  violated,  and  by  their  men.  They  said  that  the 
only  way  they  could  obviate  difficulties  of  that  kind  in  the  future  would 
be  to  have  an  agreement  with  your  association  and  their  national  organ- 
ization, instead  of  with  the  men  in  the  field;  they  had  in  mind  when  they 
made  this  suggestion  that  in  the  past  they  had  agreements  with  the  mem- 
bers of  your  organization  and  that  the  agreements  had  been  violated,  and 
by  the  men  that  made  the  agreements;  that  is,  their  own  men;  they 
admit  that  they  are  guilty  of  violating  these  agreements,  but  they  said 
that  the  only  way  that  such  violations  could  be  obviated  in  the  future 
would  be  to  have  an  agreement  with  your  organization  and  their  organ- 
ization, and  not  with  the  men  in  the  field  at  all ;  they  said  that  in  making 


IRRESPONSIBILITY  OF  UNIONS  79 

an  agreement  with  their  organization  that  would  be  mutually  beneficial, 
in  the  event  of  men  in  the  field  violating  any  of  the  provisions  of  such 
agreement,  they  would,  by  their  own  act  deprive  themselves  of  membership 
in  their  organization.  These  were  some  of  the  suggestions  they  made 
to  get  a  conference.  (The  contracts  of  which  Mr.  Moffitt  speaks  were 
with  local  boiler  makers'  unions.) 

A  Detriment  to  Honest  Labor 

(From  an  address  by  Charles  N.  Piez,  president  of  the  Link- 
Belt  Company,  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission  of 
America,  May  21,  1920.  Mr.  Piez  says  that  in  Chicago  they 
maintain  a  non-union  shop  because  unions  persistently  failed  to 
keep  agreements  which  had  been  made.) 

I  am  asked  to  speak  this  morning  on  the  question  of  "Relation- 
ships of  Organized  Labor  to  Industry."  I  want  to  preface  my  remarks  by 
stating  that  the  Link-Belt  Company,  of  which  I  have  been  president  for 
many  years,  has  plants  in  Philadelphia  and  Indianapolis,  where  the 
question  of  unionism  or  non-unionism  has  never  been  raised,  and  where 
we  have  maintained  pleasant  relationships  without  strife  or  trouble  of 
any  kind  since  I  have  been  connected  with  the  company  for  thirty  years, 
and  that  in  Chicago  we  maintain  a  non-union  establishment.  We  have 
maintained  that  for  some  thirteen  years,  and  our  reason  has  been  that 
prior  to  that  time  we  had  agreements  that  were  broken  four  times  in 
five  years,'  absolutely  broken  without  any  cause,  resulting  in  tremendous 
damage  to  us.  As  a  result,  we  decided  that  so  long  as  labor  was  not 
content  to  abide  by  its  agreements,  we  would  run  our  industry  without 
agreements. 

Alienates  Employers 

(From  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Frank  B.  McCord,  prominent 
New  York  contractor,  member  of  the  Iron  League,  before  the 
Industrial  Relations  Commission,  May  25,  1914.  The  experience 
of  Mr.  McCord  has  been  similar  to  that  of  Mr.  Piez.) 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  •  Are  you  in  favor  of  or  opposed  to  agreements  with 
labor  unions? 

MR.  McCoRD:     I  am  opposed  to  an  agreement  with  the  ironworkers. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  But  generally  are  you  opposed  to  agreements  with 
labor  unions? 

MR.  McCoRD:    We  only  have  one  other  union. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     That   is   the   hoisting   engineers? 
-MR.  McCoRD:    Yes,  sir. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  With  that  union,  you  have  an  agreement,  have  you 
not? 

MR.  McCoRD:    Yes,  sir. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Why  are  you  opposed  to  an  agreement  with  the 
structural  ironworkers  ? 

MR.  McCoRD :    Because  they  won't  live  up  to  an  agreement. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     That  is  to  say,  they  did  not  in  the  oast. 


8o  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

MR.  McCoRD:     And  they  would  not  in  the  future. 

COMMISSIONER  BALLARD:  Why  do  you  think  that  the  structural  iron- 
worker union  would  not  live  up  to  an  agreement? 

MR.  Me  CORD  :    They  never  did. 

COMMISSIONER  BALLARD:  Would  you  care  to  give  any  experience  you 
have  had  with  them? 

MR.  McCoRD:  Well,  take  it — go  back  when  we  started  off  on  the 
arbitration  plan.  They  formed  a  new  union  and  the  bosses  beat  them 
out  and  then  these  men  that  they  had  broke  in  were  taken  into  the  old 
union,  and,  of  course,  they  were  wiped  out  right  away;  they  did  not  get 
any  more  jobs.  They  were  killed  right  then  and  there.  Then  this  man 
Ryan  came  on  from  the  West  there  and  said  the  arbitration  plan  wasn't 
worth  anything,  and  the  structural  ironworkers  were  bigger  than  New 
York  City — they  were  more  powerful — and  they  were  going  to  stop  us  from 
working.  They  have  not  stopped  us  yet. 

The  same  men  are  at  the  head  of  that  union  as  were  eight  years  ago. 
They  have  not  changed  their  politics. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  John  G.  Shedd,  president  of  Mar- 
shall Field  &  Co.,  Chicago,  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Com- 
mission, July  24,  1914.  Page  3373  of  the  record.  He  repeats 
the  experience  of  Mr.  Piez  and  Mr.  McCord.  These  three  men 
fairly  represent  the  experience  of  large  employers.) 

My  experience  in  relation  to  collective  bargaining  and  trade  unions 
has  not  been  such  as  to  inspire  confidence  in  the  result  of  th,e  various 
phases  of  this  element.  The  lack  of  moral  or  financial  responsibility  to 
carry  out  the  written  contracts  of  these  institutions  is  largely  responsible 
for  my  state  of  mind  on  this  question.  Collective  bargaining,  as  I  have 
observed  it,  binds  only  the  employer  and  not  the  employe.  The  peculiar 
necessities  of  the  business  in  which  I  am  engaged  requires  service-— active 
and  prompt — and  requires  the  immediate  and  conclusive  acquiescence  of 
all  in  the  service  from  the  lowest  employe  to  the  head  of  the  house. 
We  make  no  exception  to  this  rule  and  we  have  never  found  that  it 
was  either  irksome  or  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  employe.  I 
believe  our  organization  has  the  highest  state  of  efficiency  of  any  of 
like  nature  in  the  world.  To  reach  this  high  state  of  efficiency  we  have 
for  nearly  fifty  years  adhered  strictly  to  one  policy,  probably  not  deviat- 
ing once  a  year  from  such  policy;  that  is,  continual  promotion  from 
the  ranks  going  so  far,  if  you  please,  as  from  elevator  operators  to 
stock  rooms,  stock  rooms  to  sales  persons,  sales  persons  to  department 
heads.  Every  officer  of  our  company  has  gone  up  through  the  business 
from  stock  boys  or  errand  boys  to  the  high  positions  they  now  occupy. 
As  I  view  it,  none  of  this  could  have  been  accomplished  if  these  men 
in  occupying  their  lower  positions  had  been  members  of  a  fraternity  to 
which  they  were  more  loyal  than  to  our  business. 


OUTSIDE  INTERFERENCE  81 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
Outside  Interference 

The  Closed  Shop  means  outside  interference  with  industrial 
establishments.  It  means  that  some  force  and  will,  other  than 
that  of  the  public,  is  to  interfere  in  and  to  a  greater  or  less  degree 
control  the  plants  or  shops  in  which  individuals  have  invested 
their  savings.  It  is  control  by  those  with  neither  financial  nor 
moral  responsibility  for  the  conduct  of  the  establishment.  The 
unions  with  which  we  have  to  deal  are  represented  by  "business 
agents"  or  "walking  delegates."  These  men  are  not  necessarily 
inclined  tq  favor  strife  or  to  be  unreasonable.  However,  the 
very  nature  of  their  positions  tends  to  cause  them  to  foment 
strife  and  to  be  unreasonable.  They  go,  let  us  say,  to  Mr.  Smith, 
manager  of  a  concern,  and  say  to  him:  "We  want  you  to  make 
a  contract  with  Union  No.  61."  The  men  of  Union  61  are 
employed  in  Smith's  establishment.  But  the  walking  delegate 
represents  twenty  or  more  local  unions;  he  obtains  95  per  cent 
of  his  pay  from  men  who  are  not  employed  by  Smith;  he  is  not 
employed  himself  by  Smith ;  if  the  union  rules  lessen  production 
and  raise  prices,  curtail  profits  or  force  bankruptcy  he  is  not 
the  loser. 

Many  of  these  delegates,  moreover,  feel  that  they  will  lose 
their  jobs  if  there  are  no  signs  of  activity;  that  if  everything 
seems  to  be  going  smoothly  their  men  will  think  them  idle.  So 
this  very  fact  means  that  friction  is  a  sign  of  activity  and  an  aid 
then  in  keeping  their  places.  Being  human,  the  result  is  inevi- 
table. Why  should  they  oppose  strikes  and  disputes;  is  it  not 
more  to  their  interest  to  foster  and  encourage  them? 

Irresponsible  power,  by  its  nature,  tends  to  become  arbitrary 
in  its  exercise.  The  irresponsible  nature  of  the  power  given 
means  that  scheming,  self-seeking  men  endeavor  to  secure  these 
positions  and  control  the  labor  organizations. 

Control  by  One  Per  Cent 

This  control  by  outsiders  goes  still  deeper.  The  large 
majority  of  labor  union  members  are  by  nature  peaceful,  law- 
abiding  American  citizens.  Do  they  themselves  frame  the  union 
policies  which  govern  their  actions  while  at  work  and  on  strike? 
We  do  not  undertake  to  ourselves  to  supply  the  answer,  but  will 


82  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

quote  the  well-known  "Red"  Foster.  The  New  York  Call,  one 
of  his  strong  supporters,  quotes  him  as  follows  in  its  issue  of 
December  13,  1920: 

''The  reason  our  movement  is  backward  is  the  very  activity  of 
the  radicals. 

"At  the  average  meeting  of  a  trade  union  perhaps  five  to 
ten  per  cent  of  the  members  are  present.  Of  these  only  a  few  are 
really  active,  so  that  the  whole  movement  depends  on  one  per 
cent  of  the  total  membership.  This  insignificant  minority  is  the 
heart  and . soul  of  the  labor  movement."  (Italics  ours.)  Do  you 
believe  in  minority  rule?  In  his  attempts  to  impose  union  rules 
in  a  plant  does  the  walking  delegate  represent  only  the  men  in 
that  plant;  does  he  really  represent  more  than  theoretically  the 
total  membership  in  his  union  ? 

But  even  if  all  "walking  delegates"  were  perfect,  were  not 
influenced  by  the  nature  of  their  work,  and  took  a  real  interest 
in  the  individual  employer's  welfare — even  if  these  things  were 
true,  this  outside  interference  to  which  the  employer  objects  as 
an  interference  with  the  processes  of  production  would  still  exist. 
It  would  exist  because  of  the  nature  of  the  present  labor  organi- 
zations. 

Who  Makes  the  Union  Rules? 

When  Mr.  Smith,  the  employer,  makes  a  closed  shop  agree- 
ment with  the  union  the  union  rules  must  govern  in  his  establish- 
ment. Who  makes  these  rules?  Do  his  own  employes  make  the 
rules  which  govern  their  relationships  with  him  ?  No.  The  con- 
trol of  their  actions,  so  far  as  working  rules  are  concerned,  does 
not  reside  within  their  own  group.  The  union  consists  of  work- 
ers in  the  trade  who  may  be  hired  by  one  hundred  different 
employers.  The  employes  of  any  one  must  submit  to  the  control 
of  the  whole  union,  whose  power  comes  from  the  workers  em- 
ployed in  the  other  ninety-nine  establishments. 

The  "walking  delegate"  or  "business  agent,"  represents  only 
in  part  the  group  with  which  any  individual  employer  is  con- 
cerned. He  is  not  dependent  upon  this  group  for  which  he  acts 
and  which  he  binds  by  his  acts.  The  employer  sees  no  element 
of  fairness  in  having  the  men  in  his  plant  bound  by  rules  of 
apprenticeship,  output,  etc.,  made  by  men  ninety-nine  per  cent  of 
whom  are  not  in  his  employ. 

Employers  object  to  the  Closed  Shop  because  by  the  inherent 
nature  of  the  modern  unions  outside  interference,  of  a  totally 


OUTSIDE  INTERFERENCE  83 


irresponsible  nature,  is  brought  into  industrial  establishments. 
We  saw  that  rules,  adopted  by  a  union  most  of  whose  members 
are  employed  in  other  plants,  are  enforced  in  closed  shop  estab- 
lishments. A  little  later  we  will  see  just  what  these  rules  are. 

Third  Party  Dictation 

(From  "The  Closed  Shop  vs.  The  Open  Shop,"  by  Ernest  F. 
Lloyd,  published  by  the  National  Industrial  Conference  Board.) 

If  the  source  of  control  were  immediate,  that  is,  if  it  were  lodged  in 
the  group  of  workers  with  whom  the  employer  deals,  so  that  it  might  be 
possible  to  show  the  consequences  of  an  action  to  its  members,  to  reason 
with  them,  or  even  to  share  with  them  a  loss  which  it  had  been  predicted 
would  ensue,  the  employer  might  feel  that  the  loss  would  have  at  least  an 
educational  effect  and  that  possibly  with  more  effort  on  his  part  a  repeti- 
tion might  be  avoided.  But  in  dealing  with  closed  shop  union  control  he 
has  neither  opportunity  nor  prospect.  He  may  even  know  that,  so  far  as 
the  members  of  his  own  group  are  concerned,  they  agree  with  him  in  large 
measure,  yet  that  their  union  solidarity,  or  considerations  of  personal  or 
family  security  or  comfort,  cause  them  to  subordinate  their  economic 
interests. 

Hence,  we  observe  that  in  the  closed  union  shop  the  policy  also  of  the 
shop  itself  is  substantially  determined  by  a  third  party — one  who  may  be 
morally  and  financially  irresponsible  and  who  does  not  derive  his  support 
from  the  operations  of  the  shop. 


84  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Union  Apprenticeship  Rules 

The  union  rules,  by  which  the  closed  shop  plant  must  abide, 
show  clearly  how  restriction  is  caused  and  encouraged.  Thes* 
rules  do  not  apply  in  open  shop  establishments.  The  rules  cite' 
are  typical  of  rules  in  existence  in  other  unions  and  in  all  sec 
tions  of  the  country. 

Take  first,  the  rules  which  limit  apprenticeship.  The  Cemen 
Finishers  in  Idaho  Falls,  Idaho,  have  this  rule:  "No  employe 
shall  have  more  than  one  apprentice  at  any  one  time  and  sho\il< 
an  apprentice  be  discharged  before  the  expiration  of  his  term  o 
apprenticeship,  namely,  four  years,  said  employer  shall  not  b 
entitled  to  another  apprentice  in  the  place  of  the  one  having  lef 
until  the  expiration  of  the  time  said  apprentice  should  have  t 
remain  to  finish  his  trade.  Any  journeyman  working  with  appren 
tices  who  are  not  registered  zvith  the  association,  shall  be  subjec 
to  the  same  fine  and  penalties  as  though  working  with  a  journey 
man  not  a  member  of  this  Association."  (Italics  are  ours. 
Notice  the  control  which  the  union  tries  to  keep  over  boys  wh< 
are  learning  a  trade. 

Section  31,  of  the  Carpenters'  Union  of  Idaho  Falls,  says 
"Where  a  contractor  has  five  or  more  journeymen  employe* 
steadily  he  may  have  two  apprentices.  But  at  no  time  shall  h 
employ  more  than  two  apprentices." 

The  Plumbers'  Union  provides  that  "Whenever  necessar 
local  unions  may  allow  each  shop  to  be  entitled  to  one  apprentic 
where  they  employ  one  or  more  journeymen  'steadily  *  * 
but  in  no  case  shall  any  shop  employ  more  than  four  apprentices 
*  *  *  It  is  expressly  understood  that  in  localities  where  pro 
visions  have  already  been  made  to  restrict  the  production  of  th 
apprentice  less  than  herein  provided  they  are  not  to  be  subjec 
to  this  rule." 

The  Bricklayers'  Union  provides  that  "No  contractor  sha^ 
be  allowed  more  than  one  apprentice." 

These  are  simply  typical  of  rules  enforced  by  closed  sho 
unions  all  over  the  country.  Thus,  a  special  committee  of  th 
Boston  Chamber  of  Commerce  said  in  its  recently  submitte- 


UNION   APPRENTICESHIP  RULES  85 

(1921)  report:  "The  building  industry  has  suffered  from  a  lack 
of  apprentices  *  *  *.  Union  rules  and  trade  agreements  do 
restrict  the  number  of  apprentices  to  be  employed." 

Article  9,  Section  I,  page  72  of  the  minutes  of  the  Rochester 
(1920)  convention  of  the  International  Association  of  Machin- 
ists, reads:  "The  rates  of  apprentices  shall  be  one  for  every  ten 
machinists,  instead  of  one  for  every  five  at  at  present." 

Creating  Craft  Monopoly 

Do  you  see  why  the  employers  object  to  the  union  apprentice 
system?  Why  the  public  should?  The  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers  declares:  "In  the  interest  of  employes  and  em- 
ployers of  the  country,  no  limitation  should  be  placed  upon  the 
opportunities  of  any  person  to  learn  any  trade  to  which  he  or  she 
may  be  adapted." 

Under  the  rules  of  the  closed  shop  union  what  are  the  oppor- 
tunities to  learn  a  skilled  trade,  and  who  gives  the  boy  who  wants 
to  become  a  carpenter,  plasterer,  plumber,  or  molder  his  oppor- 
tunity? His  parents  cannot;  neither  can  the  employer.  It  is  the 
closed  shop  union  which  dictates  the  time  when  he  can  start,  how 
long  he  must  serve,  and  how  many  apprentices  can  be  employed 
in  any  establishment.  As  pointed  out  in  Chapter  III,  the  closed 
shop  unions  also  endeavor  in  many  other  ways  to  limit  the  oppor- 
tunities of  non-members  to  obtain  employment;  in  some  cases 
they  even  refuse  to  permit  non-members  to  join  their  monopo- 
listic organizations,  or  make  admission  exceedingly  difficult. 

Such  a  system  prevents  the  existence  of  a  continuous  supply 
of  efficient  mechanics.  Craft  monopoly  is  built  up;  not  only  the 
actions  of  the  union  members  are  controlled,  but  those  of  every 
ambitious  boy.  These  rules  of  the  closed  shop  unions  cripple 
the  employer  and  keep  down  the  wages  of  workers  by  preventing 
boys  and  young  men  from  learning  useful  trades  and  occupa- 
tions. The  employers  believe  it  neither  right  nor  just  to  refuse 
opportunity  to  a  boy  who  is-  willing,  'and  where  an  employer 
wishes  to  hire  him,  to  learn  a  skilled  trade.  Unfair  restrictions 
are  placed  upon  that  "equality  of  opportunity"  which  is  a  funda- 
mental principle  of  individual  liberty  and  American  freedom. 

Prominent  economists  likewise  recognize  the  inherent  evils 
of  the  apprenticeship  restrictions.  Thus,  Professor  Fetter,  of 
Princeton,  says  (Modern  Economic  Problems,  Volume  II,  page 
303,  italics  ours)  : 


OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 


"Unions  often  limit  the  number  of  apprentices  and  deter- 
mine ivho  shall  have  the  privilege  of  learning  the  trade." 

Employers  who  oppose  such  a  system  surely  deserve  the 
whole-hearted  support  of  the  public. 

Practiced  in  Most  Unions 

(Extracts  from  "Apprenticeship  in  American  Trade  Unions," 
by  Dr.  J.  M.  Motley,  then  Assistant  Professor  of  Economics, 
Stanford  University.  Published  by  Johns  Hopkins  University, 
1907.) 

Of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  national  and  international  trade 
unions  with  a  total  of  1,676,200  members,  affiliated  in  1904  with  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor,  fifty  unions,  with  a  membership  of  766,417,  do 
not  attempt  to  maintain  apprenticeship  systems.  These  fifty  unions  may 
be  divided  into  four  classes. 

As  has  been  said,  about  fifty  unions  do  not  maintain  a  system  of 
apprenticeship.  The  remaining  national  unions,  that  is,  about  seventy  of 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty  affiliated  in  1904  with  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  with  a  membership  of  900,000  together  with  some  half- 
dozen  unaffiliated  national  unions,  attempt,  more  or  less  successfully  to 
enforce  apprenticeship  regulations. 

Trade-union  apprenticeship  regulations  are  formulated  in  some  cases 
by  the  local  branches;  in  others,  by  the  national  unions.  In  the  building 
trades  and  among  the  jewelry  workers  and  the  cigar  makers,  for  example, 
apprenticeship  regulation  is  a  local  matter.  Several  reasons  for  this  policy, 
especially  in  connection  with  the  building  trades,  may  be  noted. 

The  characteristics  of  the  trades  in  which  the  apprenticeship  rules  are 
formulated  by  the  international  union  are  well  illustrated  by,  the  window 
glass  workers,  iron  molders,  glass  bottle  blowers,  stove  mounters  and 
steel  range  workers. 

The  apprenticeship  regulations  of  four  trades  represented  in  the  Inter- 
national Typographical  Union,  namely,  the  English  compositors,  the 
German  compositors,  the  stereotypers  and  electrotypers,  and  the  photo- 
engravers  have  their  apprenticeship  rules  at  least  in  part  determined  by 
the  International  Typographical  Union,  but  these  regulations  do  not 
apply  to  the  three  remaining  unions,  that  is,  the  typefounders,  the  mailers 
and  the  newspaper  writers. 

The  International  Association  of  Machinists  attempts  to  maintain 
uniform  international  apprenticeship'  regulations.  "One  apprentice  is 
allowed  to  each  shop,  irrespective  of  the  number  of  machinists  employed, 
and  one  to  every  five  machinists  thereafter;  and  no  boy  shall  begin  to 
learn  the  trade  of  machinist  until  he  is  sixteen  years  old,  nor  after  he  is 
twenty-one  years  of  age."  Furthermore,  he  must  serve  four  years  at  the 
trade;  but  it  is  a  well-known  fact  to  all  members  of  the  craft  that  the 
rule  is  hardly  more  than  the  recorded  expression  of  opinion  of  what 
should  be  the  rule.  Great  diversity  of  practice  exists  among  the  local 
unions. 


UNION   APPRENTICESHIP  RULES  87 

Changed  Conditions  Mean  Nothing 

Apart  from  the  economic  characteristics  of  the  trades  and  the  gov- 
ernmental pecularities  of  the  unions,  custom  has  been  a  factor  in  deter- 
mining whether  the  national  or  the  local  union  shall  regulate  apprentice- 
ship. When  certain  policies  have  been  followed  for  years,  they  are  not 
readily  changed,  even  when  conditions  change. 

The  term  of  apprenticeship  varies  in  the  different  trades  from  two 
to  seven  years,  three  and  four  years  being  the  ordinary  term.  The  bakers 
and  confectioners  and  the  broom  makers  require  that  applicants  for 
membership  shall  have  had  two  years'  experience. 

The  watch  case  engravers  require  apprentices  to  serve  five  years. 
Some  locals  in  the  plumbing  trade  keep  the  boy  at  the  trade  six  years. 
The  machine  printers  require  that  each  apprentice  at  the  trade  shall  serve 
seven  years. 

No  Scientific  Basis 

In  theory  the  time  of  service  required  is  supposed  to  represent  the 
time  necessary  for  a  boy  of  average  ability,  under  fair  circumstances, 
to  learn  the  trade  well  enough  to  demand  a  journeyman's  wages.  In  the 
same  trade,  however,  the  term  varies  in  different  localities.  Thus'  the, 
term  of  apprenticeship  is  carpentry  in  Tacoma,  Washington,  is  three  years, 
while  in  many  Eastern  cities  four  years  are  required.  In  the  plumbing 
trade  the  term  varies  from  two  to  six  years.  This  variation  arises  partly 
from  differences  in  the  class  of  work  done,  but  more  especially  because 
the  local  bodies  are  stronger  in  some  places  than  in  others.  A  long 
apprenticeship  term  is  the  rule  where  the  union  is  strongly  organized,  or 
the  finer  grades  of  work  are  to  be  learned;  but  where  the  union  is  weak 
or  the  work  desired  is  in  the  main  of  an  ordinary  type,  the  tendency  is 
toward  a  shorter  term. 

The  apprentice  cannot  be  summarily  discharged,  except  for  incom- 
petency  or  constant  neglect,  or,  at  least,  if  discharged  without  an  explana- 
tion satisfactory  to  the  union,  his  place  cannot  be  filled  until  the  expiration 
of  the  time  for  which  he  agreed  to  serve.  The  employer  has  the  final  word 
as  to  the  fitness  of  the  boy  to  continue  at  work,  and  can  discharge  him 
at  any  time.  But,  in  general,  the  particular  journeyman  under  whose 
instruction  the  apprentice  has  been  placed  is  regarded  as  best  qualified 
to  speak  as  to  the  boy's  ability  and  conduct,  and  the  discharge  of  an 
apprentice  is  ordinarily  upon  his  recommendation  or  that  of  the  foreman 
of  the  shop. 

The  character  of  some  trades,  notably  cigar  making  and  the  building 
trades,  as  has  been  noted,  makes  it  necessary  to  leave  apprenticeship  rules 
to  local  determination.  This  policy  has  resulted  in  a  wide  range  of  treat- 
ment, in  many  cases  unwise  and  inadequate.  A  nicer  adjustment  of  rules 
to  local  conditions  has  been  secured,  but  many  local  unions  have  been 
unable  to  enforce  effective  apprenticeship  regulations.  Some  unions  make 
no  pretense  of  maintaining  an  apprenticeship  system,  and  others  make 
rules  of  the  loosest  imaginable  description.  In  consequence,  the  large, 
strongly-organized  unions  observe  elaborate  apprenticeship  codes;  in  the 
smaller  and  weaker  unions  in  the  same  trade  a  brief  statement  of  a  few 


OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 


lines  contains  all  that  is  said  in  regard  to   apprentices,  and  even  these 
provisions  are  often  openly  neglected. 

Reducing  Competition  by  Limiting  Apprentices 

(From  "Admission  to  American  Trade  Unions,"  by  Dr.  F. 
E.  Wolfe,  Colby  College.  Published  by  Johns  Hopkins  Univer- 
sity, in  1912.) 

The  most  effective  device  whereby  the  union  may  guard  the  regular 
entrance  to  a  trade  is  the  limitation  of  the  number,  rather  then  the 
requirement  of  certain  qualifications,  of  persons  who  may  become  appren- 
tices. Since  the  beginning  of  customary  or  statutory  recognition  of  the 
industrial  need  of  an  adequate  supply  of  well-trained  mechanics  a  limi- 
tation of  the  number  of  apprentices  has  been  attempted.  The  essential 
purpose  of  numerical  limitation  has  continued  to  be  the  insuring  of  a 
supply  of  workmen  according  to  the  needs  of  each  trade.  But  it  may  easily 
serve  also  one  immediate  aim  of  trade  unionism — the  maintenance  of 
wages — by  diminishing  the  competition  of  laborers  within  the  trade. 
Accordingly,  all  unions  attempting  apprentice  regulation  enforce  more 
or  less  successfully  some  form  of  numerical  limitation  of  apprentices. 

Varying  forms  of  limitation  are  used.  But  whether  enforced  as  a 
national  or  local  union  regulation,  the  commonest  form  is  a  fixed  ratio 
to  the  number  of  journeymen,  which  remains  the  same  however  great 
the  number  of  journeymen  employed.  Thus,  for  instance,  the  Holders 
have  a  fixed  ratio  of  one  apprentice  to  five  journeymen  employed.  Since 
1902  the  Saw  Smiths,  have  maintained  the  ratio  of  one  to  ten.  The  Lace 
Operatives  enforce  a  ratio  of  one  to  nine ;  the  Metal  Polishers,  one  to  eight 
the  Bridge  and  Structural  Iron  Workers,  one  to  seven;  the  Boiler  Makers, 
one  to  five;  and  the  travelers  goods -and  leather  novelty  workers  one 
to  four.  In  many  trades  local  conditions  make  it  necessary  that  the 
local  unions  should  control  the  number  of  apprentices.  It  has  conse- 
quently been  the  policy  of  the  Cigar  Makers,  the  Carpenters,  the  Painters, 
the  Bricklayers,  and  the  Printers  to  permit  the  ratio  to  be  determined  by 
the  local  unions.  In  such  cases  the  ratio  present  varying  proportions. 
The  usual  ratio  prevailing  among  the  local  unions  of  the  Painters  is 
one  apprentice  to  a  shop  with  one  for  each  five  additional  journeymen, 
among  the  Bricklayers,  one  to  three,  and  among  the  Printers,  one  to  five. 

A  second  form  of  ratio  is  a  declining  one,  by  which  the  number  of 
apprentices  is  reduced  as  the  number  of  journeymen  increases.  Thus, 
the  broom  and  whisk  makers  permit  one  apprenticeship  to  a  shop  of 
less  than  twelve  men,  two  to  a  shop  of  less  than  twenty-two  and  three  to 
a  shop  of  twenty-two  men  or  more;  but  no  more  than  three  may  be 
accepted.  This  form  of  regulation  merges  into  the  third  form  which 
limits  absolutely  the  number  that  may  be  employed  in  any  one  shop.  Thus 
the  Barbers'  International  Union  has  since  1894  allowed  only  one  appren- 
tice to  any  shop  displaying  the  union  card.  Likewise  the  Journeymen 
Plumbers'  United  Association  provides  that  apprentices  may  be  accepted 
when  necessary,  but  local  unions  shall  in  no  case  accept  more  than  four 
in  any  one  shop. 


UNION   APPRENTICESHIP  RULES 


Views  of  Employers 

The  following  views  of  representative  employers  are  ex- 
tremely interesting.  They  show  the  harm  to  industry  and  to  boys 
of  ambition  which  the  union  apprenticeship  rules  work.  Mr. 
Donnelley,  who  runs  both  closed  and  open  shop  establishments, 
answers  the  argument  that  the  union  rules  prevent  unemploy- 
ment. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  T.  E.  Donnelley,  conducting  print- 
ing establishments  in  Chicago  and  Indianapolis ;  before  the  Indus- 
trial Relations  Commission,  July  25,  1914.) 

MR.  DONNELLEY:  Well,  now,  I  think  the  greatest  charge  against  the 
unions  is  the  fact  that  they  limit  apprentices.  If  there  is  any  one  thing 
which  this  country  has  stood  for  it  is  the  fact  that  the  young  man 
has  a  chance.  Unions  have  tried  to  close  that  chance.  I  understand — 
I  am  only  now  speaking  from  what  I  remember  in  reading  that  the 
great  majority  of  criminals  are  not  immigrants,  but  are  the  sons  of 
immigrants.  Now,  we  have  a  condition  here  in  Chicago  of  thousands  and 
thousands  of  the  second  generation  of  immigrants  growing  up  who  are 
prohibited  by  the  rules  of  the  union  from  learning  a  trade.  What  is 
before  them  is  this:  They  have  got  to  stay  in  what  we  call  common 
labor,  in  the  ranks  of  common  labor.  That  means  low  wages,  little  oppor- 
tunity, and  social  dissatisfaction  arises.  When  we  established  our  open 
shop  I  made  up  my  mind  that  I  was  going  to  try,  as  far  as  I  was  con- 
cerned, to  correct  that  evil.  Of  course  we  need  boys  sixteen  years 
of  age.  The  law  prohibited  a  boy  younger  than  sixteen,  and,  as  we 
all  know,  from  working  more  than  eight  hours  a  day,  and  from  working 
on  machinery.  Now,  the  fact  is  that  there  are  very  few  factories  in 
Chicago  running  eight  hours  a  day,  even  union  shops,  because  they 
run  more  than  eight  hours  a  day  in  order  to  get  the  Saturday  after- 
noon half  holidays.  We  could  not  get  boys  at  sixteen  years  of  age 
that  we  need  to  learn  the  business,  because  they  had  been  ruined  in  the 
years  between  fourteen  and  sixteen  years  of  age.  It  is  an  established 
practice  among  the  people  of  the  lowest  walks  of  life  that  when  their 
children  are  boys  of  fourteen  they  must  go  out  and  earn  a  living.  I 
do  not  uphold  that,  but  that  is  the  unfortunate  situation.  So  we  made 
up  our  minds  we  would  start  in  to  save  those  boys.  We  established 
in  our  plant  a  school  where  a  boy  came  to  work  for  half  a  day  in  our 
factory,  and  then  for  three  and  a  half  hours  he  would  go  to  our  school. 
Another  boy  would  go  to  school  in  the  morning  and  work  at  the  factory 
in  the  afternoon.  There  were  not  two  boys  in  the  factory  at  the  time 
and  they  did  not  have  any  disarrangement  of  the  boys  lying  around.  In 
this  school  we  not  only  teach  them  to  set  type  and  all  the  technique  of 
the  art  of  printing,  but  we  teach  them  arithmetic  and  give  them  algebra 
and  geometry  and  give  them  English  and  give  them  science,  etc.  Now, 
when  they  are  sixteen  we  put  those  boys  in  the  factory  full  time,  except 
for  three  hours  a  week.  We  have  to-day  in  our  factory  eighty-seven 
of  those  boys.  We  have  been  running  now  for  six  years.  If  I  was  running 


go  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

union  conditions  I  would  be  entitled  to  twenty-eight.  We  now  have 
eighty-seven. 

Now,  I  feel  very  strongly  on  this  question  of  apprenticeship,  and  it 
seems  to  me  it  is  the  greatest  charge  against  unionism. 

Several  years  ago  in  New  Jersey  a  law  was  introduced,  which  was 
not  passed,  prohibiting  unions  from  limiting  the  number  of  apprentices. 
I  think  it  should  be  passed.  I  think  it  should  be  passed  here.  I  think 
the  State  should  have  the  right  to  say — they  have  the  right  to  say  he 
must  go  to  school  until  he  is  fourteen,  and  he  cannot  work  over  eight 
hours  a  day  until  he  is  sixteen — and  I  think  the  State,  the  community, 
should  have  the  right  to  say  that  a  boy  shall  have  the  opportunity  of 
learning  a  trade,  and  the  union  cannot  prohibit,  provided,  of  course,  .the 
boy  is  really  being  instructed.  I  don't  think  they  should  be  allowed 
to  come  in  there  and  be  exploited  and  thrown  out  in  the  street  after 
their  wages  have  come  to  a  reasonable  rate.  But  as  long  as  the  boys 
are  receiving  real  instruction  I  think  that  they  should  be  allowed  to 
work,  should  be  by  law  permitted  to  work  and  that  the  unions  should 
not  prohibit  it. 

I  would  also  say  that  the  same  scheme  which  I  have  adopted  in 
my  factory  has  now  been  adopted  by  others,  and  they  have  established 
a  school  for  the  whole  printing  industry  that  will  run  the  open  shop. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Take  the  apprenticeship  proposition — assuming  there 
were  no  unions — what  would  be  the  basis  of  limitation  of  the  amount  of 
apprentices  in  any  shop? 

MR.  DONNELLEY:  I  do  not  think  there  should  be  any  limitation, 
provided  the  boys  are  really  instructed.  Of  course,  I  can  realize — 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  In  the  industry  itself,  would  the  owner  of  the  plant 
limit,  or  what  would  be  the  proper  basis  of  his  limitation  if  he  did? 

MR.  DONNELLEY:  Well,  now,  of  course  I  can  appreciate  that  the 
unions  would  fear  at  first  that  there  would  be  a  great  influx  of  boy 
laborers,  which  they  might  think  is  cutting  their  wages,  but  as  soon  as 
this  proposition  was  all  taken  care  of — all  the  boys  were  employed — of 
course  that  would  not  exist.  I  think  the  limitation  of  apprentices  would 
be  the  number  of  apprentices  that  the  man  would  think  he  would  need 
at  that  time.  I  think  if  every  man  tried  to  take  on  an  average  the 
number  of  employes  in  his  plant,  that  would  be  the  natural  limit.  I 
am  quite  sure  we  are  absorbing  in  our  plant  the  number  graduated  each 
year,  and  there  will  be  no  men  laid  off  on  account  of  it. 


(Statement  of  Mr.  Grant  Fee,  president  of  the  Building 
Trades  Employers  Association  of  San  Francisco  to  the  Industrial 
Relations  Commission,  1914.  Pages  5312  and  5313  of  the  record.) 

Passing  now  from  the  limitation  of  output,  let  us  consider  the 
conditions  confronting  the  employer  with  reference  to  apprentices  seek- 
ing admission  to  the  various  building  trades. 

The  employers  in  the  structural-iron  business  think  the  apprentice 
system  fails  to  measure  up  to  its  necessities,  in  that  it  does  not  allow  for 
a  normal  increase  of  membership  without  unduly  and  all  too  hastily 


UNION  APPRENTICESHIP  RULES  91 

crowding  the  apprentice  into  the  journeyman  class.  The  attention  of 
your  body  is  called  to  the  fact  that  but  one  apprentice  is  allowed  to  eight 
journeymen.  A  majority  of  jobs  in  this  business  are  small,  where  a 
full  erecting  gang  is  made  up  of  the  five  men  and  one  engineer,  but 
no  apprentice  is  allowed.  The  work  is  particularly  hazardous,  and  the 
annual  death  and  disability  rate  high.  The  nature  of  the  work  forces 
the  older  men  to  find  other  employment.  Were  the  apprentices  in  this 
craft  to  serve  the  time  necessary  to  make  them  proficient  journeymen, 
the  restriction  placed  upon  their  number  would  not  supply  recruits  for 
the  ranks  to  take  the  places  of  those  who  drop  out,  much  less  provide 
for  a  normal  increase,  unless  some  expedient  were  adopted.  It  follows 
that  there  are  many  journeymen  who  have  served  only  a  month  or  two 
as  apprentices,  who,  for  that  reason,  are  not  and  cannot  be  capable 
all  around  men,  yet  they  must  be  paid  the  regular  scale  of  wage. 
That  this  condition  should  be  remedied  needs  no  argument. 

Apprentice  System  Harms  Apprentices 

The  apprenticeship  system  in  the  sheet-metal  trades,  though  somewhat 
different,  works  upon  the  employer  just  as  great  a  hardship  and  acts  as 
a  boomerang  to  the  apprentice. 

Looking  at  the  laws  governing  the  apprenticeship  system,  we  find 
the  by-laws  of  Local  Union  No.  104,  of  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  Sheet  Metal 
Workers'  International  Alliance,  article  14,  section  6,  states  that  appren- 
tices when  starting  at  the  trade  shall  be  required  to  apply  to  the  execu- 
tive board  for  registration.  This  section  provides  that  no  employer  can 
place  a  boy  as  an  apprentice  in  a  shop  unless  said  boy  has  been  regis- 
tered as  an  apprentice  by  the  executive  board  of  the  union,  and  should 
the  employer  desire  to  register  any  particular  boy,  before  said  boy  can 
be  placed  in  his  shop,  he  must  wait  until  the  boys  already  registered 
by  the  union  have  been  placed  as  apprentices.  In  many  cases  it  has  been 
found  almost  impossible  to  get  any  particular  boy  registered  and  placed 
in  any  particular  shop. 

Article  14,  Section  3,  of  the  same  by-laws,  states  that  all  apprentices' 
members  shall  appear  before  the  examining  board  once  every  six  months 
and  shall  have  an  increase  in  wages  from  time  to  time,  at  the  discretion 
of  the  board.  This  sum  is  increased  from  time  to  time  by  said  board, 
and  the  boy  is  warned  that  he  can  not  work  for  any  firm  under  the  rate 
set  by  said  examining  board.  In  practice  it  is  found  that  after  a  period 
ranging  from  a  year  to  eighteen  months  the  rate  set  by  the  union  is 
greater  than  the  boy  can  earn,  with  the  limited  knowledge  he  has  attained 
in  this  period. 

Practically  this  system,  therefore  works  an  elimination  of  these  boys 
from  the  trade,  because  they  are  obliged,  by  union  law,  to  demand  more 
from  the  employer  than  their  earning  capacity  is  capable  of  producing. 

Article  14,  section  4,  of  the  by-laws  of  the  same  union  states  that 
every  apprentice  member  shall  have  his  rating  established  on  his  card, 
same  to  be  his  rating  for  six  months.  This  condition  has  been  presented 
to  the  local  union  many  times  without  favorable  results  to  the  boy. 
A  careful  perusal  of  the  general  principles  of  the  Amalgamated  Sheet 


92  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Metal  Workers'  International  Alliance  will  show,  under  the  heading, 
"General  Principles"  (apprenticeship),  the  following  statement: 

"We  favor  the  adoption  of  a  legal  apprenticeship  system,  the  parents 
binding  the  boy  to  remain  at  least  three  years,  and  the  employer  shall  not 
have  more  than  one  apprentice  for  every  six  journeymen  in  his  employ." 

The  employers  also  favor  a  legal  apprenticeship  of  three  years. 

The  apprentice,  then,  because  of  his  inability  to  earn  the  wage  insisted 
on  by  the  union,  must,  after  a  wasting  year  or  eighteen  months,  remain 
either  an  inefficient  mechanic  or  seek  other  employment. 

Turning  to  the  case  of  the  Lighting  Fixture  Hangers'  Union  we  have 
a  concrete  example  of  the  policy  of  this  union  regarding  those  seeking 
to  enter.  The  letters  in  connection  with  this  case  (see  Exhibit  No.  24) 
show  an  honest  attempt  by  a  boy  to  gain  admission  to  this  union.  This 
union  failed  to  respond  to  his  personal  request.  The  matter  was  then 
taken  up  by  the  Lighting  Fixture  Club,  the  association  of  employers  in  this 
trade,  and  to  their  letter  requesting  that  some  action  be  taken  by  the 
union  no  response  was  forthcoming. 

The  letter  by  the  club  is  attached  hereto,  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  "Exhibit  No.  25."  Here,  then,  deliberate  lack  of  action  on  the 
part  of  the  union  prevents  a  man  from  taking  up  a  trade  to  his  liking 
and  forces  him  into  restriction  of  apprenticeship,  believing  that  every  boy 
in  America  should  have  the  opportunity  to  learn  a  trade. 

An  Argument  Answered 

When  faced  by  their  rules  restricting  the  opportunity  to 
learn  skilled  trades  the  closed  shop  apologist  sometimes  says : 

"These  rules  may  exist,  but  they  work  no  hardship.  Inves- 
tigations show  that  employers  frequently  do  not  employ  even  as 
many  apprentices  as  our  rules  allow  them." 

This  is  not  true  in  a  majority  of  cases,  but  it  does  happen  to 
be  true  in  some  places.  Several  things  account  for  this  condi- 
tion: 

(1)  Union   apprenticeship   rules   restrict  the  amount   and 
kind  of  work  apprentices  may  perform,  thereby  making  it  unpr^f- 
itable  for  closed  shop  employers  to  hire  apprentices. 

(2)  Sometimes  the  apprenticeship  wage  demanded  by  the 
union  is  so  high  as  to  make  employment  of  more  than  a  minimum 
number  inadvisable. 

(3)  Union  journeymen  frequently  evince  little  interest  in 
the  apprentices  they  are  supposed  to  instruct,  making  it  impos- 
sible for  them  to  become  highly  skilled.    The  result  is  to  increase 
the  number  of  inefficient  journeymen  in  union  ranks ;  the  employer 
does  not  desire  to  add  to  the  number. 

(4)  Where  work  of   an   extra  high  grade   is  performed 
apprentices  are  not  desired. 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  93 


CHAPTER  X. 
Output  Restriction 

The  rules  of  many  unions  provide  for  limitation  of  the 
amount  of  work  a  worker  shall  perform  in  the  course  of  a  day. 
Plans  for  the  increase  of  efficiency  by  scientific  methods  are 
opposed. 

The  testimony  offered  will  show  the  fact  of  a  decline  in  pro- 
duction and  then  the  union  rules  which  result  in  such  decline. 
In  Chapter  XI  we  will  examine  the  operations  of  open  shop 
plants  and,  as  far  as  possible  compare  their  costs  with  closed 
shop  plants. 

It  is  sometimes  denied  that  labor  unions  do  restrict  output, 
but  the  denial  cannot  be  supported  by  the  facts.  The  official 
report  for  the  fiscal  year  1920  of  the  Construction  Division  of 
the  United  States  Army  says: 

"While  rates  and  materials  have  increased  throughout  the  United 
States  it  is  also  a  fact,  that  production  has  decreased  to  such  an  extent 
that  it  is  very  marked  in  certain  localities.  Bricklayers  who  at  one  time 
laid  an  average  of  fifteen  hundred  bricks  per  day  on  straight  walls,  are 
now  averaging  between  six  and  seven  hundred;  plumbers  who  roughed  in 
and  finished  five  fixtures  in  five  days  have  shown  a  decided  decrease  in 
the  work  performed.  The  carpenters,  too,  who  fitted,  hung,  and  locked 
four  and  five  large  doors  per  day  seem  to  be  no  more,  and  so  on  down 
the  line.  The  universally  attractive  high  standard  wages  paid  to  organ- 
ized labor  have  placed  the  second  rate  craftsmen  on  a  par  with  the  high 
class,  efficient  artisans  and  instead  of  the  average  day's  work  being  raised 
it  is  proportionately  lowered  because  the  first-class  journeyman  must 
carry  along  his  less  efficient  brother,  which  results  in  the  above  condition." 

This  is  from  an  official  government  report. 

The  report,  it  will  be  observed,  refers  to  "organized  labor," 
which,  to-day,  means  the  closed  shop  advocates.  The  union  rules, 
by  which  the  closed  shop  plant  must  abide,  show  clearly  how 
restriction  is  caused  and  encouraged.  These  rules  do  not  apply 
in  open  shop  establishments.  The  rules  cited  are  typical  of  rules 
in  existence  in  other  unions  and  in  all  sections  of  the  country. 

Harvey's  Weekly  of  December  4,  1920,  states : 
"Statistics  show  that  in  Indiana  the  wages  of  bricklayers  have  in- 
creased by  several  steps,  from  1909  to  1920  to  the  extent  of  127  per  cent, 
but  that  their  efficiency,  denoted  by  the  number  of  bricks  laid  in  a  day, 
has  declined  to  nearly  51  per  cent  Figures  such  as  these  are  repeated  in 
many  occupations." 


94  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

According  to  the  December  15,  1920,  bulletin  of  the  Alton,  111., 
Manufacturers'  Association,  the  Grand  Jury  of  Cuyahoga  County, 
Ohio,  after  investigating  Housing  Conditions,  said:  "The  chief 
cause  of  the  increased  building  costs,  was  that  labor  would  not 
give  a  full  day's  work,  and  that  they  are  doing  less  than  half  the 
work  they  did  on  a  pre-war  basis."  To  verify  this  statement,  the 
Builders'  Exchange  of  Cleveland,  gave  these  figures:  Lathing, 
eight  hours,  1914,  107  yards;  1919,  88  yards.  Painting,  same 
job  1914,  172  hours ;  1920,  238  hours.  Both  for  1914  and  1919, 
the  figures  relate  to  "closed  shop"  labor. 

Mr.  A.  W.  Wilson,  Business  Agent  of  Local  Plumbers  and 
Steam  Fitters  Union  No.  665,  in  Buffalo,  is  quoted  in  the  Buffalo 
Commercial  of  January  4,  1921,  as  calling  attention : 

"To  the  fact  that  the  average  steamfitter  could  erect  and  connect 
from  four  to  six  radiators  in  an  eight-hour  day,  but  that  in  the  past  they 
had  been  limited  by  these  outside  influences  to  erecting  and  connecting 
not  more  than  one  to  one  and  one-half  radiators  per  day.  In  other  words : 
the  union  steamfitters  in  the  past  have  been  compelled  to  limit  their  output 
^  not  to  exceed  one-quarter  or  one-third  of  their  otherwise  natural 
ability." 

Union  Rules  Limit  Production 

The  plumbers  in  their  Constitution,  adopted  in  1913,  provide 
(Section  125),  that  members  cannot  make  "use  of  bicycle  and 
motorcycle  during  working  hours."  The  obvious  result  is  to 
prevent  their  covering  more  than  a  limited  number  of  jobs  in  a 
day.  The  Baltimore  local  union  of  plumbers  prohibits  its  mem- 
bers telephoning  to  the  employers  when  they  are  "out  jobbing  to 
know  if  there  are  any  more  jobs  in  the  neighborhood." 

In  a  number  of  places  the  lathers  limit  the  day's  work  of 
wood  lathers.  The  stone  cutters'  union  goes  at  it  in  another  way, 
and  forbids  any  member  receiving  more  than  the  other  men  on 
the  same  "job."  The  more  efficient  workman  can  receive  no 
more  than  his  fellow-worker,  perhaps  half  as  efficient.  The  New 
York  Branch  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  has  adopted  this 
by-law :  "Any  member  who  does  an  unreasonable  amount  of 
work  *  *  *  shall  be  fined  for  the  first  offense  $10.00;  for 
the  second  offense  he  shall  be  suspended  or  expelled."  We 
declare  that  policies  which  make  all  men  on  a  job  earn  the  same 
amount  and  produce  the  same  quantity,  regardless  of  individual 
differences  in  their  ability,  are  absolutely  wrong. 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  95 


Government  Report  Condemns  System 

The  official  report  of  the  United  States  Government,  before 
quoted,  brings  out  clearly  the  evils  of  such  a  system,  a  system 
which  is  a  vital  part  of  the  closed  shop  plan  of  operation. 

"The  Government,  where  it  employs  laborers  direct,  both  skilled  and 
unskilled,  cannot  discriminate  either  in  favor  of  or  against  organized 
tradesmen,  but  it  can  on  its  maintenance  and  utilities  work,  hire  and  pay 
competent,  qualified  men  based  on  their  efficiency  rather  than  any  set  stand- 
ard of  wages  which  might  be  adopted  by  a  body  of  men  regardless  of  the 
ability  of  men  who  are  to  receive  that  rate.  The  injustice  works  two 
ways,  both  to  the  detriment  of  the  efficient  workmen  and  also  to  the 
employer  who  must  carry  along  an  inefficient  employe  at  the  higher  rate 
simply  because  of  his  affiliations  with  an  organization.  While  it  may  be 
common  practice,  nevertheless,  experience  has  taught  us  that  no  single 
schedule  is  equally  adaptable  for  all  trades  from  a  standpoint  of  produc- 
tion." 

Condemned  by  Economists 

Professor  Adams,  in  his  book  on  "Labor  Problems"  says 
that:  "The  good  effects  of  collective  bargaining  may  plainly  be 
negatived  by  *  *  *  undermining  the  standard  of  efficiency 
through  underhand  restriction  of  output." 

Professor  Fetter,  of  Princeton,  in  Volume  II  of  his  book  on 
"Modern  Economic  Problems,"  says  (italics  ours)  : 

"Unions  often  limit  the  number  of  apprentices  and  determine  who 
shall  have  the  privilege  of  learning  the  trade.  By  a  variety  of  regula- 
tions they  limit  the  output  and  in  many  cases  (though  less  frequently 
now)  have  opposed  the  use  of  labor-saving  machinery." 

Professor  Deibler,  of  Northwestern  University,  testifying 
before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission,  July  23,  1914,  said 
that,  "limiting  the  output"  by  "taking  the  matter  into  the  hands 
of  the  employe  without  the  consent  of  the  employer  *  *  *  is 
detrimental.  I  think  it  operates  detrimentally  to  the  laborers 
themselves  to  the  extent  which  the  limitation  of  output  goes  when 
you  abuse  its  use." 

Minimum  Rates  and  Maximum  Wages 

(Extracts  from  "The  Standard  Rate  in  American  Trade 
Unions,"  by  Dr.  David  A.  McCabe,  Professor  of  Economics  in 
Princeton  (jniversity.  Published  by  Johns  Hopkins  University, 
1912.  Dr.  McCabe  shows  the  methods  by  which  unions  limit 
the  day's  work  and  tend  to  make  all  workers  earn  the  same 
amount,  regardless  of  individual  efficiency.) 

By  the  term  "standard  rate,"  as  employed  in  the  present  monograph, 
is  meant  a  rate  of  wages  fixed  by  a  trade  union  as  payment  for  a  given 


96  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

product  or  for  work  of  a  given  duration  in  a  particular  trade  or  branc 
of  a  trade,  and  binding  on  the  members  of  the  union  engaged  on  tha 
product  or  in  that  branch  of  industry. 

The  maintenance  of  standard  rates  has  always  been  a  leading  featur 
of  American  trade-union  wage  policies. 

This  distinguishing  mark  of  a  standard  rate,  that  is  to  say,  the  attribut 
which  makes  a  union  rate  standard,  is  uniformity  of  application,  or  th 
obligation  to  observe  such  a  rate  in  all  the  shops  or  localities  for  whic 
it  is  established.  A  very  important  point  with  regard  to  any  given  rat 
therefore  is  the  industrial  or  territorial  extent  over  which  it  is  standarc 
Some  rates  are  standard  only  for  single  shops,  others  for  localities,  other 
for  districts  or  sections  embracing  many  localities  and  some  in  all  shop 
or  plants  in  the  entire  union  jurisdiction. 

There  are  in  many  unions  policies  or  attitudes  with  reference  t 
the  relation  of  output  and  wages  which  discourage  the  payment  of  wage 
above  the  union  minimum.  The  union  rule  or  attitude  in  these  case 
does  not  have  its  origin  in  any  opposition  to  the  receiving  of  wages  abov 
the  minimum.  The  prevention  of  "rushing"  and  of  increasing  the  outpu 
expected  of  the  average  workman  as  "a  day's  work"  is  the  direct  en< 
aimed  at. 

Other  building-trades  unions  offer  less  explicit  discouragement  t 
receiving  more  than  the  minimum  rate  for  greater  speed  in  working,  bu 
in  general  the  sentiment  of  the  men  is  against  a  few  men  receiving  mor 
than  the  others  on  the  same  job  simply  on  account  of  greater  speed.  1 
few  unions  have  specific  regulations  against  rushing  or  setting  a  pace 
The  result  is  that  in  trades  where  speed  can  be  compared  men  do  abou 
the  same  amount  of  work  and  payment  above  the  minimum  is  usually  fo 
general  competency  or  workmanship  of  a  higher  grade  and  not  fo 
speed. 

A  few  unions  effectually  discourage  very  great  variation  in  wages  o: 
account  of  speed  by  the  adoption  of  limits  to  the  amount  of  work  to  b 
done  in  a  day.  The  lathers  limit  the  day's  work  of  wood  lathers  ii 
many  places,  and  a  resolution  establishing  a  national  limit  was  adoptd 
by  the  1907  convention.  "Stints"  are  observed  in  many  local  unions  o 
other  trades  where  the  character  of  the  work  makes  their  enforcemen 
feasible.  Sometimes,  as  among  the  coat  operators  and  the  cutters  ii 
the  Garment  Workers'  Union  and  among  the  local  unions  of  the  art  glas 
workers,  these  rules  are  adopted  as  defences  against  the  enforcement  o 
larger  tasks  by  the  employers.  The  meat  cutters,  when  a  strong  unior 
gave  much  attention  to  limiting  the  day's  work  of  time  workers.  At  ; 
meeting  of  the  national  executive  board  in  1901  to  consider  the  formula 
tion  of  a  scale  of  wages,  "it  was  declared  the  sense  of  the  executiv 
board  that  in  order  to  avoid  the  unjust  methods  that  are  often  adopted  b; 
many  superintendents  and  foremen  in  forcing  unjust  conditions  by  crowd 
ing  the  men  that  the  amount  of  work  to  be  performed  and  considere< 
a  fair  day's  work  should  be  determined,  the  same  to  be  based  on  a  ten 
hour  day."  In  the  1902  convention  the  president  of  the  union,  in  pointing 
out  that  the  time  had  not  yet  come  to  adopt  a  uniform  scale  for  hoj 
butchers  stated  that  the  prevention  of  rushing  should  be  enforced  befor- 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  9> 


anything  else.  The  Chicago  local  unions  while  they  were  able,  enforced 
limits  which  considerably  reduced  the  average  output. 

It  has  long  been  common  among  the  iron  molders  to  observe  a  "set 
day's  work."  Originally,  a  "set"  was  the  number  of  castings  which  a  man 
was  expected  by  the  employer  to  do.  The  workmen  later  began  in  many 
localities  to  adopt  "sets"  for  themselves,  and  the  amount  of  work  which 
was  to  be  regarded  as  a  "set"  came  finally  to  be  the  subject  of  agree- 
ment between  the  employer  and  the  shop  committee. 

Very  little  seems  to  be  known  as  to  the  difference  in  efficiency  among 
men  engaged  in  the  same  kind  of  work.  It  is  safe  to  assume,  however, 
that  they  are  not  reflected  in  time-working  trades  with  any  exactness  by 
the  wages  paid,  even  where  there  is  no  union  minimum.  When  the  union 
confines  its  action  in  wage  rating  to  the  establishment  of  a  single  mini- 
mum rate  for  members  engaged  in  the  same  kind  of  work,  it  is  obvious 
that  the  adjustment  of  individual  earnings  to  individual  capacity  is  not 
as  likely  to  be  secured  as  under  the  piece-rate  system.  Even  where  the 
union  does  not  discourage  large  outputs,  the  time  wages  of  the  better  men 
do  not  exceed  the  minimum  in  the  same  proportion  that  the  men  show 
efficiency  above  the  average. 

The  maintenance  of  a  minimum,  rate  by  a  union  also  in  another  way 
tends  to  make  wages  uniform.  The  fact  that  a  given  rate  is  the  "union" 
rate,  and  as  such  becomes  the  center  of  attention  and  the  subject  of  nego- 
tiation and,  even  of  conflict — this  makes  it  the  presumptive  rate.  More- 
over, many  employers  who  are  brought  with  much  reluctance  to  agree  to 
observe  the  minimum  look  upon  the  minimum  as  a  "lump"  rate  which  they 
have  agreed  to  pay  the  union  for  the  labor  of  its  members.  These 
employers  often  take  the  ground  that  they  should  not  be  expected  or 
cannot  afford  to  pay  the  better  men  more  than  the  minimum,  because  they 
are  compelled  to  pay  the  union  rate  to  many  men  who  are  not  worth  it. 
The  provisions  in  agreements  noted  above  against  reducing  the  higher 
men  are  evidences  of  this  feeling.  The  union  officials  assert  that  some 
employers'  associations  have  a  rule  against  paying  men  more  than  the 
minimum.  There  is,  of  course,  a  greater  likelihood  of  united  action  against 
the  payment  of  differential  wages  when  the  minimum  is  established  by 
agreement  of  the  union  and  the  employers  as  a  body. 

The  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron,  Steel  and  Tin  Workers,  the 
Flint  Glass  Workers,  and  the  Window  Glass  Workers,  for  years  main- 
tained limits  of  output  in  their  national  scales,  and  the  scales  of  the 
Window  Glass  Workers  and  of  some  branches  of  the  Flint  Glass  Workers 
still  provide  such  limits. 

Where  the  limits  have  been  abandoned,  it  has  been  because  the  unions 
have  been  unable  to  maintain  them  on  account  of  the  opposition  of  the 
employers  and  the  competition  of  non-union  workers. 

R\iles  Which  Restrict  Output 

(From  "Unemployment  in  American  Trade  Unions,"  by  Dr. 
D.  P.  Smelser.  Published  by  Johns  Hopkins  University,  in  1919. 
Pages  46-50.  Dr.  Smelser  shows  that  the  majority  of  unions 
have  unwritten  rules  for  the  restriction  of  output.  Dr.  Smelser 


98  OPEN  SHOP -ENCYCLOPEDIA 

answers  the  argument  that  such  restriction  prevents  unemploy 
ment.) 

The  policy  of  restriction  of  output  is  justified  by  a  number  of  union 
as  a  method  by  which  emplo3rment  may  be  increased.  The  desire  t 
"make  the  work  go  round"  is  prevalent  chiefly  in  trades  which  expe 
rience  extreme  seasonal  fluctuations,  and  where  the  output  is  restricte* 
in  order  to  "make  the  seasons  longer."  The  instances  of  union  regula 
tions  for  the  systematic  restriction  of  output  are  not  very  numerom 
despite  the  fact  that  the  inducements  to  adopt  such  policies  are  very  grea- 
Fifteen  years  ago,  a  number  of  unions  provided  in  their  constitutions  fo 
a  restriction  of  output,  but  only  a  few  have  maintained  such  policie 
to  the  present  time.  The  force  of  public  opinion  and  the  increasin 
disinclination  of  the  employers  to  bargain  with  the  unions  that  open! 
declared  for  restriction  forced  these  unions  to  abandon  such  policie! 
Two  of  the  most  glaring  and,  perhaps,  most  important  illustrations  o 
restriction  of  output  which  are  sanctioned  by  the  national  unions,  ar 
those  of  the  printers  and  the  machinists. 

The  Typographical  Union  prohibits  the  loaning,  borrowing,  purchas 
or  sale  of  news  matter  in  type,  linotype,  matrix  or  plate  form  or  o 
miscellaneous  matter  or  cuts  in  small  forms  between  newspapers  of 
city.  Furthermore,  the  loaning,  borrowing,  exchange,  purchase  or  sale  o 
matter  or  matrices,  or  cuts  of  advertisements,  by  one  local  newspape 
to  another,  is  prohibited,  except  that  when  the  matrices  of  advertisement 
are  furnished  by  one  local  newspaper  to  another,  the  text  shall  be  reprc 
duced  within  one  week  from  the  time  of  publication  as  nearly  like  th 
original  as  possible,  made  up,  read,  corrected  and  proofs  be  submitte 
to  the  chairman  for  inspection.  This  rule  has  been  characterized  a 
"job  making"  of  the  most  despotic  sort,  and,  although  some  justificatio 
has  been  attempted  for  the  rule  which  requires  the  resetting  of  advertisin 
matter,  a  great  many  of  the  members  of  the  union  criticise  the  rules  o 
the  ground  that  the  only  reason  for  their  enforcement  is  the  desire  t 
"make  work." 

The  International  Association  of  Machinists  in  1901,  prohibited  it 
members  from  operating  more  than  one  machine.  The  one-man-one 
machine  rule,  however,  is  not  operative  when  the  machines  require  n 
special  skill  to  supervise  them  or  are  double  machines.  This  rule  ha 
its  genesis  in  an  unwritten  law  which  prevailed  in  the  trade  before  th 
organization  of  the  machinists.  And  indeed,  many  employers  do  not  no^ 
object  to  the  rule  when  it  is  applied  to  establishments  which  make  larg 
machinery,  because  in  these  establishments  two  machines  cannot  be  effect 
ively  operated  by  a  single  workman.  However,  in  shops  making  smalle 
work,  the  rule  operates  as  a  restriction  of  output,  for  often  one  man  i 
capable  of  operating  more  than  one  machine.  Thus,  while  the  one-mar 
one-machine  rule  of  the  machinists  is  justified  in  a  great  number  of  case 
there  are  other  instances  where  its  operation  is  merely  a  method  c 
"making  work."  The  union  explains  that  the  purpose  of  the  rule  is  th 
physical  protection  of  the  workman,  but  it  seems  clear  that  this  is  nc 
the  only  motive.  An  officer  of  the  union  said  in  1901 :  "We  prevente 
the  introduction  of  the  two-machine  system  in  137  shops,  employin 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  99 


9,500  men,  and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  if  this  system  had  been  introduced 
the  force  of  men  would  have  been  reduced  one-eighth;  hence,  in  this  we 
have  saved  the  positions  of  1,188  men." 

These  two  examples  are  by  no  means  the  only  instances  of  restriction 
of  output  in  American  unions.  Thus,  a  curious  regulation  of  the  plumbers 
for  increasing  the  consumption  of  time  is  the  prohibition  upon  its  mem- 
bers of  "the  use  of  the  bicycle  and  motorcycle  during  the  working  hours." 
A  business  agent  when  asked  for  the  justification  of  this  rule  stated 
that  "a  plumber  could  cover  twice  as  many  jobs  that  way." 

In  the  majority  of  trades  there  are  unwritten  regulations  for  the  deter- 
mination of  the  daily  "stint."  And,  in  the  greater  number  of  cases,  they 
have  been  handed  down  from  one  generation  of  members  to  another. 
They  are  not  incorporated  in  any  constitutions  or  working  rules,  but 
there  is  a  tacit  understanding  among  the  members  as  to  what  constitutes 
a  day's  work. 

It  is  very  doubtful  whether  restriction  of  output  affects  to  any  extent 
the  amount  of  unemployment.  If  restriction  were  applied  only  in  sea- 
sons of  depression,  such  might  be  the  effect,  but  restriction  of  output 
on  the  part  of  individual  workmen  generally  occurs  in  periods  of  pros- 
perity. The  employers  maintain  that  in  busy  times  men  work  at  a  more 
leisurely  pace  than  they  do  in  dull  times,  and  the  reason  for  this  differ- 
ence is  obvious.  When  every  member  of  the  local  union  is  employed 
and  there  , is  need  for  additional  workmen,  some  workmen  do  no  more 
than  is  absolutely  necessary  because  they  do  not  fear  immediate  dis- 
charge. On  the  other  hand,  however,  when  only  two-thirds  of  the  trade 
is  employed,  the  other  third  being  idle  but  anxious  to  secure  work, 
the  workmen  who  have  employment  will  exert  themselves  to  do  all  they 
can,  knowing  that  many  unemployed  men  are  waiting  for  any  vacancy 
that  may  occur. 

Restriction  by  Closed  Shop  Labor 

(The  following  account  of  output  restriction  by  closed  shop 
labor  was  written  by  Noel  Sargent,  former  instructor  in  eco- 
nomics at  the  University  of  Minnesota.) 

No  fair-minded  man,  whether  he  is  an  employer  of  labor  or  not  can 
have  any  valid  objection  to  labor  receiving  adequate  wages,  having  good 
working  conditions,  and  reasonable  hours.  But  is  there  any  good  and 
satisfactory  reason  why  at  the  present  time  labor  shouldn't  give  in  return 
an  honest  day's  work  for  a  day's  pay?  It  is  essentially  dishonest  for  a 
man  to  give  a  lesser  return  than  he  is  able  to  give.  You,  Mr.  Farmer  or 
Mr.  City  Dweller,  would  righteously  resent  it  if  you  hired  a  man  to  paint 
your  house  and  discovered  that  half  of  the  time  he  was  supposed  to  be 
working,  he  was  sitting  behind  the  barn  smoking  his  pipe.  Wouldn't 
you?  Yet  that  policy  is  the  prevailing  evil  to-day  in  the  ranks  of  union 
labor. 

You  and  I  are  being  "sandbagged"  into  paying  higher  prices  for  the 
house  that  shelters  us,  the  clothes  that  protect  us  and  the  food  that 
nourishes  us.  No  matter  whether  you  live  or  die  the  process  is  made 
more  expensive  as  a  result  of  union  labor's  arbitrary  and  unfair  policy 
of  restriction. 


ioo  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

There  is  plenty  of  proof — in  addition  to  observations  most  of  us  ha^ 
had  an  opportunity  to  make — or  that  have  been  forced  upon  us.  We  wa: 
to  be  absolutely  fair,  however,  so  here  is  an  extract  from  a  signed  artic 
prepared  for  the  writer,  November  10,  1912,  by  Mr.  C.  W.  Doyle,  busine 
agent  (practically  the  same  as  "General  Manager")  of  the  Central  Lab 
Council  of  Seattle: 

"It  has  often  been  stated  that  there  is  some  restriction  of  the  outpi 
That  is  not  true,  there  being  no  limit  to  what  a  man  should  or  should  n 
do  in  a  given  time.  In  times  past  in  some  trades  such  a  condition  d 
prevail,  but  such  an  unfair  demand  could  not  last.  Therefore,  it  has  be 
abolished  in  every  craft." 

Just  note  these  things  about  Mr.  Doyle's  denial.    He  says  it  would 
an  "unfair  demand"  to  limit  men  as  to  what  they  "should  or  should  not  < 
in  a  given  time."    Past  restrictions,  lie  says,  have  been  "abolished  in  eve 
craft,"  and  it  is  "not  true"  that  output  is  restricted  to-day. 

Now  I  am  going  to  present  proof  which  will,  I  believe,  convince  a 
reasonable  person  that  labor  unions  actually  do  restrict  output  at  t! 
present  time — and  just  remember  that  this  high  labor  official  says  tf 
practice  is  "unfair." 

Proof  That  They  Do 

The  following  statements  proving  that  unions  do  restrict  output  a 
found  in  books  written  by  authorities  recognized  as  fair,  and  in  neai 
every  case  quite  friendly  to  organized  labor.    These  books  are  written 
scholars  and  investigators,  men  friendly  to   the  labor   unions — and  th 
prove  that  production  is  actually  cut  down  by  the  deliberate  policies 
the  trade-unions. 

Professor  Groat  concludes  a  study  of  the  question  as  follows: 

"The  facts  seem  to  stand  out  that  limitation  of  output  is  purpos< 
practiced  by  laborers  in  unions  as  well  as  out;  that  there  are  locals  whc 
members  have  deliberately  adopted  rules  providing  for  such  restricti 
and  imposing  a  penalty  for  their  violation.  *  *  *  In  many  other  instam 
it  appears  to  be  well  established  that  laws  and  rules  have  been  not  01 
enacted  but  often  enforced  in  order  to  accomplish  restriction  of  outpu 

The  labor  unions  do  not  realize  that  in  adopting  such  rules  they  c 
not  only  hurting  the  rest  of  the  community  and  raising  the  cost  of  livii 
but  that  they  are  hurting  themselves,  as  Professor  Adams  truly  says. 

Fifteen  years  ago  a  large  number  of  the  unions  used  to  provide 
their  constitutions  for  restrictions  on  output.  Public  opinion  was  agaii 
this  "unfair  demand"  and  the  employers  in  many  cases  refused  to  barge 
with  unions  openly  declaring  for  restriction — so  these  unions  were  fore 
to  abandon  such  policies  in  their  constitutions.  So  only  a  few  unic 
to-day  have  provisions  in  their  constitutions  which  provide  for  restricti 
of  output ;  but  most  of  them  advocate  and  practice  restriction  neverthele 
as  a  result  of  by-laws  or  the  "unwritten  law." 

Such  practices  are  only  one  form  of  selling  dishonest  goods.  Th 
advocates  and  users  practice  fraud  on  buyers  and  on  the  general  pub; 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  101 


Examples  of  Restriction 

Many  of  the  unions  have  by-laws  and  regulations,  some  covering  all 
of  the  locals  in  the  United  States  and  others  being  only  local,  which 
restrict  output.  The  following  examples  are  similar  to  restrictions  in 
existence  all  over  the  country. 

The  Baltimore  local  union  of  plumbers  prohibits  its  members  from 
telephoning  to  the  employers  when  they  are  "out  jobbing  to  know  if  there 
are  any  more  jobs  in  the  neighborhood."  A  fine  way  of  making  it  more 
expensive  to  get  plumbing  jobs  done! 

In  a  number  of  places  the  lathers  limit  the  day's  work  of  wood 
lathers.  The  stone  cutters'  union  goes  at  it  in  another  way,  and  forbids 
any  member  receiving  more  than  the  other  men  on  the  same  "job."  If  you 
are  a  more  efficient  worker  than  the  average  and  able  to  earn  more,  you 
must  nevertheless  keep  down  the  amount  of  work  you  do,  so  that  your 
earnings  won't  be  any  more  than  the  other  fellows,  perhaps  half  as 
efficient,  get.  And  yet  the  men  who  make  such  rules  are  the  very  ones 
who  come  around  to  us  complaining  about  "robbery"  and  wanting  a 
"square  deal" — but  we  want  it  to  be  one  for  everybody.  To  us  it  does 
not  seem  just  for  a  union  to  fine  one  of  its  members  who  produces  more 
than  the  average ;  union  coal  miners  have  been  fined,  according  to  Gov- 
ernor Allen  of  Kansas,  as  much  as  $45.00  each  for  producing  too  much 
coal  in  one  week.  This  method  of  restricting  output,  and  consequently 
raising  prices,  is  a  shameful  imposition  on  the  American  public. 

The  International  Association  of  Machinists  has  for  years  prohibited 
its  members  from  operating  more  than  one  machine.  In  large  shops  this 
doesn't  work  any  hardship,  but  in  shops  which  do  work  on  a  smaller 
scale  the  rule  operates  as  a  restriction  on  the  output,  since  one  man  is 
often  capable  of  operating  more  than  one  machine. 

National  limits  are  imposed  upon  the  amount  of  work  that  may  be 
done  or  the  amount  that  may  be  earned  by  the  Window  Glass  Workers 
and  some  branches  of  the  Flint  Glass  Workers.  Local  or  shop  limits  are 
known  to  exist  in  these  unions ;  Stove  Mounters,  Hatters,  Iron,  Steel  and 
Tin  Workers,  Pen  and  Pocket  Knife  Grinders,  Table  Knife  Grinders, 
Broom  Makers,  Leather  Workers,  and  Brick  Makers. 

The  above  are  typical  instances  of  union  rules  which  result  in  output 
restriction.  And  as  Dr.  Smelser  says : 

"In  the  majority  of  trades  there  are  unwritten  regulations  for  the 
determination  of  the  daily  'stint'  *  *  *  They  are  not  incorporated  in  any 
constitutions  or  working  rules,  but  there  is  a  tacit  understanding  among 
the  members  as  to  what  constitutes  a  day's  work." 

It  is  an  industrial  disgrace  and  a  menace  to  the  rest  of  society  when 
labor  unions  can  succeed  in  putting  over  policies  which  make  all  men  on 
a  job  earn  the  same  amount  and  produce  the  same  quantity,  regardless  of 
individual  differences  in  their  ability. 

Twin  City  Bricklayers 

Thomas  H.  Preece,  Vice-President  of  the  International  Bricklayers' 
Union,  said  recently  (quoted  in  *Brick  and  Clay  Record,  February  24,  1920)  : 

That  the  bricklayers,  like  "other  classes  of  workmen  *  *  *  are  not 
producing  that  which  they  should  produce  for  the  money  they  are  getting. 


162  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

*  *  *  A  good  bricklayer  can  lay  1,400  to  1,600  bricks  a  day.    When  he  he 
done  that  he  has  done  a  good  day's  work." 

Do  you  know  that  in  the  Twin  Cities  bricklayers  are  laying  only  7C 
to  800  bricks  a  day — just  half  what  one  of  their  best  known  leaders  say 
they  should  lay?  That's  one  of  the  things  that  makes  home  building  s 
expensive  these  days — and  because  home  building  costs  are  prohibitiv 
rents  are  going  up  to  the  sky.  Twin  City  bricklayers  get  $1.25  an  hour- 
or  $55.00  per  week — about  $240.00  a  month:  In  1907  they  got  $19.20 
week;  their  wages  have  increased  185  per  cent.  Yet  to-day  they  produc 
only  half  what  they  should! 

Can  Dishonesty  Pay? 

Manufacturers  make  a  mistake  and  injure  the  public  as  well  a 
themselves  if  they  retain  out-of-date  or  wasteful  plants  and  equipmen 
Those  who  do  so  must,  however,  soon  abandon  their  foolish  and  wasteft 
policies  or  be  forced  out  of  existence  by  pressure  from  alert  and  up-to-dat 
competitors.  For  labor  to  deliberately  do  less  than  that  which  it  is  pai 
for  doing  is  even  more  harmful  to  the  public  welfare.  Labor  is  sellin 
"fake"  goods ;  it  is  not  giving  an  honest  labor  day  for  the  wage  it  demand 
and  accepts. 

After  all,  the  question  is  not  one  of  what  is  paid  for  wages — but  o 
the  service  which  is  given  in  return.  There  is  no  desire  to  hurry  men  s 
fast  they  will  injure  the  quality  of  the  product  or  impair  their  own  healtl 
And'  the  amount  of  work  that  can  be  done  without  such  impairment  ca 
be  scientifically  determined. 

The  employer  who  agrees  to  pay  the  union  rate  of  wages  expects  an 
should  receive  the  benefit  of  the  full  and  unrestrained  ability  of  th 
worker.  To-day  he  doesn't  get  this.  The  consequence  is  excessive  cost 
of  production,  which  finally  must  be  paid  by  the  community ;  you  and 
are  the  real  sufferers  because  or  organized  labor's  deliberate  lessenin 
of  production. 

Trade  union  autocracy,  as  sought  in  the  United  States  by  organize 
labor,  demands  full  power  over  our  economic  life;  extreme  wages,  wit 
no  regard  to  service,  quality  or  output;  all  these  in  absolute  disregard  c 
individual  and  public  rights — all  this  is  contrary  to  every  principle  fo 
which  our  government  stands. 

Minimum  Tasks  Opposed 

(Testimony  of  Mr.  P.  J.  Conlon,  vice-president  of  the  Inter 
national  Association  of  Machinists,  before  the  Industrial  Rela 
tions  Commission,  April  14,  1914.  Objection  to  any  minimur 
task  being  set.) 

MR.  THOMPSON:  What  is  the  general  attitude,  if  there  is  any,  c 
your  organization  on  scientific  management? 

MR.  CONLON  :  The  best  answer  I  could  give  you  to  that  would  b 
to  read  an  extract  from  our  laws :  "This  association  stands  for  th 
abolition  of  the  operation  of  more  than  one  machine,  piece-rate  premiun 
merit,  task,  or  contract  systems.  Members  who  may  be  found  guilt 
of  agitating  or  encouraging  any  of  these  systems  in  shops  where  it  is  no 
in  operation  are  liable  to  expulsion;  and  the  practice  in  such  shops  sha 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  103 


be  entirely  abolished  as  soon  as  possible  the  date  to  be  set  by  the  general 
executive  board." 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  If  I  understand  that  correctly,  that  would  prevent 
your  men  from  working  under  any  task  system? 

MR.  CONLON  :  Yes ;  there  is  no  hope  of  redress  at  all,  and  they 
will  finally  try  to  ruin  the  business  of  the  employer. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Yes.  Then  the  question  is,  after  all,  is  it  reason- 
able or  unreasonable,  fair  or  unfair? 

MR.  CONLON:    We  object  to  a  minimum  task  being  set. 

(Testimony  of  Mr.  Roswell  D.  Tompkins,  secretary-treas- 
urer of  the  United  Trade  Business  Agents  of  Greater  New  York, 
before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission,  May  25,  1914. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  How  do  you  interpret  this  rule  which  is  part  of 
your  by-laws :  "Each  and  every  member  will  be  expected  to  do  a 
fair  day's  work,  and  if  on  any  job  it  is  the  judgment  of  the  other 
members  working  on  said  job  that  any  individual  member  who  is  found 
working  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  other  members  on  that  job  a 
complaint  must  be  filed  immediately  by  the  business  agent  against  the 
member  complained  of,  and  if  found  guilty  shall  be  removed  from  the 
job." 

MR.  TOMPKINS:  The  interpretation  of  that  is  this:  A  job  might 
be  working  with  probably  eight  or  ten  men,  probably  for  three  or  four 
weeks,  going  along  very  nicely,  and  another  new  man  is  introduced  on 
the  job.  This  man  starts  to  speed  it  up,  as  they  call  it.  Probably  for 
three  or  four  weeks  prior  to  the  admittance  of  this  man  in  on  the  job 
everything  has  been  going  along  very  nicely,  no  fault  found  by  either  the 
employer  or  the  foreman,  and  this  man  starts  out  and  probably  will 
put  in  a  certain  amount  a  day  of  work  on  the  job,  and  it  is  found 
out  that  he  is  getting  probably  fifty  or  seventy-five  cents  on  the  side 
for  doing  it.  Now,  that  is  what  that  clause  covers. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Well,  assume  that  he  is  not  being  paid  anything 
extra  on  the  side,  but  is  working  faster  than  your  members  think  he 
ought  to  work,  he  still  would  come  within  this  rule,  wouldn't  he? 

MR.  TOMPKINS  :  He  would  come  within  that  rule  and,  upon  com- 
plaint, be  removed  from  that  job. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Who  decided  whether  he  is  working  faster  than 
he  ought  or  not,  the  local  union? 

MR.  TOMPKINS:     The  local  union — the  men  on  that  job. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Does  the  manufacturer  or  contractor  have  any  voice 
in  it? 

MR.  TOMPKINS:    No  voice  in  it  at  all. 

The  True  Meanings  and  Value  of  Scientific  Management 

(From  "The  Price  of  Efficiency,"  by  Frank  Koester  1913. 
Mr.  Koester  shows  the  real  meaning  of  "scientific  management," 
answers  the  objections  made  by  the  closed  shop  unions,  shows 
how  the  present  system  of  output  restriction  harms  the  workers 


104  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

and  the  public,  and  points  out  the  benefits  to  both  which  greater 
efficiency  in  effort  will  bring.  This  Association  must  not  be  con- 
sidered as  endorsing  any  of  the  specific  plans,  schemes,  or  outlines 
of  "scientific  management"  or  "industrial  efficiency"  which  have 
been  advanced.) 

"Scientific  management,"  a  recent  and  high-sounding  name  given  to 
the  common-sense  policy  of  shop  efficiency,  is  also  bitterly  opposed  by 
the  labor  unions.  It  amounts  to  a  conservation  of  energy,  and  consists  in 
reducing  the  number  and  difficulty  of  the  bodily  movements  necessary  to 
perform  any  given  task. 

Thus,  a  bricklayer,  by  standing  in  a  certain  position,  having  his  bricks 
placed  on  a  platform  at  a  selected  level  and  adopting  a  certain  sequence 
of  movements,  can  lay  three  times  as  many  bricks  in  a  day  as  one  who 
goes  at  his  task  in  the  usually  inconvenient  manner,  and  not  be  any  more 
fatigued  by  his  work  if  as  much.  A  house  built  in  such  a  manner  is 
much  less  expensive  than  by  the  old  methods,  and  were  all  houses  so 
built,  rents  would  be  greatly  reduced.  Yet  the  bricklayer  can  only  see 
the  point  that  by  producing  three  times  as  much  work,  he  will  be  out  of 
work  three  times  as  quickly,  and  he  therefore  adopts  the  opposite  plan, 
restricting  his  output  as  much  as  possible.  All  other  trades  follow  a 
similar  policy,  for  except  on  piece  work,  it  is  almost  the  universal  custom 
among  workingmen. 

If  as  a  body  they  understood  the  advantages  of  efficiency,  with  the 
consequent  cheapening  of  products,  and  doubled  their  output,  an  enor- 
mous effect  would  be  produced. 

If,  for  example,  a  million  coats  are  made  daily,  and  the  makers 
increased  their  product  to  two  million  without  any  additional  cost  of 
labor,  the  cost  of  coats  would  be  greatly  cheapened.  But  if  carried  out, 
practically  half  the  coat  makers  would  be  thrown  out  of  work,  a  calamity 
more  obvious  than  real,  as  they  would  be  able  to  find  work  in  other  lines 
while  the  coats  of  all  would  be  cheaper,  including  their  own. 

In  fact,  for  each  worker,  the  consequent  cheapening  of  coats  for  the 
remainder  of  his  life  would  be  in  itself  more  than  compensation  for  the 
loss  of  his  position. 

The  same  process  applied  to  all  trades  would  throw  half  the  workers 
out  of  employment  sooner  or  later,  depending  on  the  time  consumed  in 
arriving  at  the  new  condition.  But  though  half  the  workers  were  thrown 
out  of  work,  the  cost  of  living  would  be  reduced  to  half  its  former  figures, 
so  that  the  condition  of  the  whole  would  not  be  any  worse  while  the 
necessity  of  women  and  boys  under  eighteen  working  would  not  exist. 
The  whole  family  of  the  laborer  could  live  on  his  earnings,  instead  of,  as 
at  present  having  to  work  to  make  up  the  industrial  deficiency  caused  by 
his  ignorant  attempt  to  get  the  best  of  his  employer. 
Why  the  Output  Is  Restricted 

The  labor  unionist,  however,  will  argue  that  if  the  worker  doubles  his 
output,  it  will  throw  half  of  his  fellow  workmen  out  of  work  and  that 
the  consequent  over  supply  of  labor  will  result  in  the  unemployed  half 
competing  with  the  employed  half,  with  the  result  that  all  are  re-employed, 
but  each  at  half  the  former  wages  to  turn  out  twice  as  much  in  products 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  105 


as  before,  not  a  pleasant  prospect  for  the  laboring  man.  Even  admitting 
that  such  would  be  the  case,  the  cost  of  production  would  by  this  process 
be  reduced  to  one-fourth  the  present  cost,  for  ultimately  labor  is  the 
only  item  that  enters  into  the  cost  of  any  article  of  commerce.  The  cost 
of  living  being  reduced  thus  to  one-fourth  its  previous  figure,  the  worker 
working  for  half  his  former  salary  would  buy  twice  as  much  as  it  does 
now.  He  would  be  twice  as  well  off  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  would 
be  doing  twice  as  much  work.  The  laborer  cannot,  considered  as  a  body, 
divest  himself  of  the  fruits  of  his  toil  any  more  than  he  can  permanently 
obtain  a  greater  compensation  than  that  to  which  he  is  entitled  by  natural 
laws,  no  matter  what  scheme  or  device  he  employs.  - 

Consider  on  the  other  hand  that  the  labor  unionists  were  to  be  able  to 
obtain  double  their  present  wages  for  doing  half  as  much  work.  The 
cost  of  all  products  would  be  quadrupled  immediately,  but  the  wages  of 
the  worker  being  only  doubled,  he  would  be  in  a  position  only  half  as 
advantageous  as  at  present.  Some  such  process  as  this  has  taken  place 
in  the  last  generation  throughout  the  world.  The  workingman  has  become 
filled  with  false  ideas  as  to  his  rights  and  privileges  and  what  his  labor 
entitles  him  to,  and  with  everyone  else,  he  is  to-day  reaping  the  bitter 
harvest.  Wealth  is  nothing  but  accumulated  work  and  the  more  work 
that  the  individual  can  do,  the  richer  will  be  the  world.  By  the  not  very 
great  addition  to  work  of  increasing  its  value  a  dollar  a  week,  the  wage 
earners  of  the  country  in  twelve  months  would  produce  value  equivalent  to 
the  entire  fortunes  of  Morgan,  Rockefeller  and  half  a  dozen  other  of  the 
richest  men  in  the  country,  and  give  such  an  impetus  to  prosperity  that 
hard  times  would  be  a  thing  of  the  past  for  years. 

No  worker  working  for  himself  ever  restricts  his  output.  But  the 
worker  imagines  that  in  working  for  his  employer  he  is  working  for 
someone  else.  Such  is  not  the  case.  The  public  is  composed  of  the 
public,  not  of  strange  gods  or  wealth  devouring  ogres,  and  work  is  always 
wealth.  The  worker's  living  expenses  are  certain,  and  more  or  less  fixed, 
[f  he  works  twice  as  much  he  produces  twice  as  much  value.  It  goes 
somewhere.  Into  the  pockets  of  capital,  the  laborer  thinks,  but  this  is  not 
the  case.  As  little  popular  sympathy  as  it  arouses,  competition  among 
dollars  for  jobs  is  just  as  keen  as  among  workers.  Capital  quickly  flows 
into  new  and  profitable  enterprises  and  deserts  old  ones.  If  a  moving 
picture  theater  makes  money,  a  dozen  others  spring  up  to  cut  down  the 
profits  of  the  first.  If  a  foundry  or  a  factory  in  a  certain  line  is  very 
profitable,  there  is  a  rush  to  get  into  that  business.  Money  is  subject  to 
the  laws  of  supply  and  demand  just  as  labor  is.  Everyone  wants  money, 
but  few  demand  it  so  strongly  as  to  pay  100  per  cent  interest.  In  fact 
6  per  cent  is  about  the  ordinary  wages  of  money.  The  more  money  there 
is,  the  lower  the  rate  of  interest.  Capital  thus  measures  its  own  return 
by  the  amount  of  it  in  existence,  the  more  capital  the  less  return,  just 
as  labor  is  measured,  the  more  laborers,  the  lower  the  wage. 

The  worker  who  is  apparently  making  his  employer  richer  by  working 
twice  as  hard,  is  in  reality  working  for  himself,  for  although  the  employer 
may  temporarily  become  richer  as  an  individual,  it  gives  him  money  which 
he  must  invest  and  throw  into  competition  with  money  invested  in  other 


io6  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

business  or  in  his  own.  If  he  enlarges  his  plant,  the  worker  is  surer  o 
employment.  If  some  other  manufacturer  from  some  other  field  invade 
the  field,  the  worker  has  a  choice  of  employers,  he  is  in  fact  compete 
for  by  the  very  wealth  he  has  created  in  his  own  increased  efforts.  Th 
enormous  mass  of  fresh  capital  produced  by  a  new  point  of  view  of  th 
worker  would  in  competing  with  existing  capital  reduce  the  cost  of  necej 
sities.  The  wage  earner  would  thus  be  deriving  the  benefit,  since  hi 
wages  though  not  increased  would  have  an  increased  purchasing  power. 

Capital  has  certain  limits  of  profit,  just  as  labor  has.  Each  takes  it 
natural  proportion  in  accordance  with  the  relative  amounts  of  each  i 
existence.  Thus  the  worker,  by  more  effective  efforts,  when  he  increase 
the  amount  of  money  in  other  peoples'  pockets,  is  improving  his  own  con 
dition  by  creating  new  purchasing  power  for  his  products,  and  is  increas 
ing  his  wages  through  reducing  the  relative  returns  to  capital  caused  b; 
his  own  efforts  in  bringing  more  capital  into  existence.  He  become 
vastly  more  valuable  to  himself,  to  his  employer  and  to  the  world  thai 
in  his  previous  condition. 

The  Folly  of  Output  Restriction 

Yet  practically  throughout  the  world,  especially  in  English-speakinj 
countries,  the  worker  restricts  his  output.  The  new  system  of  "scientifi< 
management"  is  violently  opposed,  yet  it  involves  no  more  fatigue  thai 
present  methods  while  producing  much  greater  results.  What  it  amount: 
to  is  a  study  of  the  bodily  movements  with  a  view  to  eliminating  thos< 
which  are  superfluous  or  awkward,  so  that  a  worker  at  the  end  of  a  da] 
has  made  no  greater  number  of  movements  than  ordinarily,  and  ha: 
expanded  no  more  strength,  but  his  strength  and  his  movements  have  beei 
productive  ones.  Indeed,  owing  to  the  waste  motions  being  eliminated 
the  amount  of  work  done  is  often  less.  Even  the  housekeeper  can  intro 
duce  a  little  "scientific  management"  in  the  kitchen  by  the  erection  of  i 
new  shelf  to  save  steps,  by  sweeping  with  a  certain  motion  or  by  allowing 
the  dishes  to  remain  in  hot  water  for  a  time  before  washing  them.  Scien- 
tific management  is  merely  common  sense  applied  to  the  daily  task.  The 
vast  amount  of  wealth  that  dies  still  born  in  the  factories  of  the  worlc 
every  day  is  almost  incalculable. 

In  the  United  States  there  are  7,017,138  wage  earners  in  factories 
according  to  the  1908  governmental  report,  "Earnings  of  Wage  Earners.' 

The  census  of  manufacturers  of  1905  reported  216,262  establishments 
of  which  19,679  reported  no  wage  earners  in  employment,  leaving  196,58;; 
to  be  investigated  in  connection  with  the  report  on  weekly  earnings.  The 
returns  from  72,880  of  the  establishments  were  so  defective  or  unsatis- 
factory that  they  could  not  be  used.  Of  the  remaining  123,703,  or  62.9  per 
cent  of  the  whole  number  having  wage  earners,  the  reports  enabled  the 
preparation  of  most  interesting  deductions. 

The  inquiry  called  for  the  segregation  of  wage  earners  according  to 
groups  of  actual  earnings,  and  not  rates  of  pay;  and  therefore  the  dis- 
tribution gives  the  actual  numbers  that  earned  the  specified  amounts  dur- 
ing the  week  covered  by  the  report.  The  terms  "wages"  and  "earnings'1 
are  frequently  used  synonomously.  Earnings  and  not  rates  of  wages, 
either  actual  or  other,  are  given  in  the  report.  The  totals  include  piece 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  107 


workers,  and  cover  all  branches  of  employment  in  the  manufacturing  indus- 
tries of  the  country,  exclusive  of  the  office  force. 

Of  the  3,297,819  wage  earners  covered  by  the  investigation,  2,619,053, 
or  79  per  cent,  were  men,  588,599,  or  17.9  per  cent  were  women;  and 
90,167,  or  2.7  per  cent  were  children. 

The  pay  rolls  of  the  123,703  establishments  for  the  week  covered 
amounted  to  $33,185,791,  and  of  this,  men  received  $29,240,287,  or  88.1 
per  cent;  women,  $3,633,481,  or  n  per  cent;  and  children,  $312,023  or 
nine-tenths  of  I  per  cent. 

As  each  establishment  was  requested  to  report  the  actual  number 
employed  during  the  week  and  the  actual  amount  paid  that  number,  it 
should  be  safe  to  use  the  above  totals  to  compute  the  average  earnings 
for  the  week.  They  give  $10.06  as  the  average  weekly  earnings  for  all 
classes  of  wage  earners  during  the  selected  week,  and  $11.16,  $6.17  and 
$3.46  as  the  averages  for  men,  women  and  children  respectively. 

The  classification  shows  the  concentration  of  men  at  the  higher  and 
of  women  and  children  at  the  lower  weekly  earnings.  More  than  one- 
half  (55.5  per  cent)  of  all  the  wage  earners  received  $9  and  over  per 
week.  Two-thirds  (66.6  per  cent)  of  the  men  received  $9  and  over  for 
the  week,  while  only  one-seventh  (14.1  per  cent)  of  the  women  were 
paid  at  this  rate.  The  children  receiving  $9  and  over  were  so  few  that 
they  are  included  in  the  general  tabulations  with  those  receiving  $8  and 
over. 

The  greatest  number  of  wage  earners,  namely,  464,875,  make  from 
$12  to  $15  per  week,  while  some  132,064  make  less  than  $3  per  week. 

Conserving  Resources  by  Increasing  Output 

From  a  consideration  of  other  tables  given  in  this  report,  it  is  esti- 
mated that  about  3,000,000  wage  earners  are  so  employed  that  by  the 
adoption  of  intensive  work,  they  could  greatly  increase  their  output.  The 
other  wage  earners  are  so  employed  that  their  output  could  either  be  but 
slightly  increased  or  not  at  all.  But  the  output  of  the  3,000,000  could 
readily  be  increased  50  per  cent,  and  at  the  average  wage  of  all  factory 
workers,  approximating  $9  a  week,  this  would  mean  a  saving  of  $2,340,000 
a  day  or  the  vast  total,  figuring  300  working  days  in  the  year,  of 
$702,000,000.  That  is,  there  is  that  much  money  wasted  in  misdirected 
efforts  every  year,  by  far  a  larger  item  than  any  that  has  been  made  in 
any  computation  in  reference  to  the  conservation  of  the  country's 
resources. 

The  census  of  1900  showed  29,287,070  persons,  ten  years  of  age  and 
over,  as  engaged  in  gainful  occupations,  and  assuming  that  the  average 
weekly  wage  is  $6,  and  omitting  the  3,000,000  factory  workers  already 
referred  to,  the  application  of  intensive  work  to  the  extent  of  only  10 
per  cent,  would  mean  an  increase  of  sixty  cents  a  week  for  26,000,000 
workers,  or  $2,704,000  a  day. 

In  whatever  employment  the  worker  may  be  engaged,  an  increase  of 
10  per  cent  efficiency  may  be  obtained,  and  in  most  cases  very  easily 
obtained  without  any  additional  effort  at  all.  In  three  hundred  working 
days,  the  10  per  cent  increase  would  mean  $811,200,000  which  with  the 
factory  increase  mentioned,  makes  a  total  of  $1,513,200,000. 


io8  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

This  vast  sum,  that  might  be  added  to  the  wealth  of  the  country 
annually,  would  be  like  quarts  of  blood  transfused  into  the  veins  of  an 
anaemic;  where  there  is  now  financial  lassitude,  activity  and  vigor  would 
result;  where  credits  are  restricted  and  capital  wanting,  there  would  be 
energy  and  prosperity.  The  attitude  of  antagonism  the  fact  that  some- 
one else  will  become  too  prosperous,  jealousy  of  the  success  of  others 
and  particularly  of  those  who  are  in  the  position  of  employers,  brings 
misfortune  for  all. 

The  man  who  devotes  himself  to  schemes  for  preventing  others  from 
making  money,  will  never  have  the  time  to  make  much  for  himself. 

Almost  as  bad  as  this  grudging  of  effort  in  its  costliness  to  humanity, 
is  the  time  lost  in  strikes,  the  most  direct  expression  of  the  differences 
between  capital  and  labor. 

The  waste  of  grudging  effort,  or  as  is  often  the  case,  simply  the 
inefficient  or  "what's-the-use"  failure  of  the  worker  to  put  forth  his  best 
effort,  lies  in  the  feeling  that  no  one  else  will  do  so.  There  is  an  utter 
lack  of  co-operation  and  concerted  effort. 

A  group  of  laborers  tugging  at  a  timber  will  not  move  it  unless  there 
is  a  concerted  effort.  It  is  then  moved  with  little  trouble. 

A  method  of  introducing  a  concerted  effort  in  intensive  work  needs 
to  be  devised.  If  all  workers  knew  that  on  a  certain  day  all  other  work- 
ers were  going  to  put  forth  extra  efforts,  it  would  have  the  effect  of 
contagious  enthusiasm,  and  even  the  most  indolent  would  be  "on  the 
job"  on  such  a  day.  What  the  country  needs  thus,  is  a  tuning  up  or 
period  of  forcing,  a  time  during  which  prodigious  efforts  are  to  be 
made;  after  which  the  greater  effort  would  become  a  habit,  and  the 
previous  method,  a  remembrance  as  of  the  dreaded  tasks  of  childhood. 

Perhaps  the  only  time  the  whole  country  has  engaged  in  a  concerted 
and  prearranged  effort,  was  the  cessation  of  all  activity  for  one  minute  at 
the  time  of  the  funeral  of  President  McKinley,  when  all  transportation 
and  work  was  stopped.  This  had  a  great  psychological  effect. 

.  A  concerted  effort  of  this  kind  to  initiate  a  new  attitude  towards  the 
day's  work  could  not  fail  to  have  an  enormous  effect. 

While  such  concerted  action  might  prove  an  immediate  expedient 
and  a  starting  point,  a  more  permanent  change  of  the  point  of  view  is 
necessary.  There  must  be  systematic  training.  The  right  direction  must 
be  given  and  the  sense  of  responsibility  to  humanity  made  a  part  of  the 
technical  training  of  all. 

Each  one  should  be  taught  to  do  his  part  for  the  sake  of  the  rest  of 
the  world  as  well  as  for  hirnself.  The  spirit  of  mutual  helpfulness  on  the 
part  of  all  concerned  should  take  the  place  of  animosity  and  jealousy. 

Limitation  in  Practice 

(Statement  of  Mr.  Grant  Fee,  president  of  the  San  Fran- 
cisco Building  Trades  Employers  Association  to  the  Industrial 
Relations  Commission.  Pages  5310,  5311  of  the  record.  Limita- 
tions in  a  strong  closed  shop  city.) 

Far  more  serious  is  that  sinister  control  which  is  at  present  being 
exercised  over  foremen  and  members  of  various  unions  in  the  different 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  109 


crafts,  whereby  these  men  are  prevented  from  doing  an  honest  day's 
work  for  a  reasonable  wage.  In  other  words,  though  a  man  of  ordinary 
ability  in  any  craft  is  able  to  turn  out  a  certain  amount  of  work, 
this  secret  agreement  or  understanding  prevents  him  from  turning 
out  that  amount  of  work,  and  limits  him  to  a  lesser  amount. 

In  proportion  as  this  charge  is  a  serious  one  should  there  be  given 
to  it  that  grave  consideration  which  it  deserves.  In  our  estimation  enough 
to  warrant  affidavits  from  the  employers  whose  very  business  this  system 
tends  to  undermine.  Take,  for  instance,  the  employers  in  the  composi- 
tion roofing,  damp  and  water  proofing  business. 

Exhibit  No.  I  shows  an  attempt  to  adjust  this  matter  of  limitation 
of  output  peaceably.  This  means  having  failed,  a  lockout  of  all  the 
roofing  craft  was  declared  by  the  master  roofers  and  manufacturers' 
association,  under  date  of  July  31,  1913.  This  matter  was  referred  to 
the  building  trades  employers'  association — the  employers  controlling 
body — by  the  master  roofers'  association.  (Exhibits  Nos.  2  and  3.) 

Exhibit  No.  4  shows  a  report  pf  the  investigating  committee  sent 
out  by  the  building  trades  employers'  association.  On  August  13,  1913, 
the  agreement  (Exhibit  No.  5)  was  arrived  at  by  conference  between  th'e 
building  trades  employers'  association  and  the  building  trades  council. 
A  very  short  time  afterwards  it  was  found,  however,  that  in  spite  of  this 
agreement  the  pernicious  practice  of  limiting  the  output  had  not  been 
eliminated,  and  further  questions  arose  between  the  employers  and  the 
union  which  imposed  hardship  on  the  employers.  (See  Exhibits  Nos. 
6-14.) 

A  careful  perusal  of  these  exhibits  will  show  that  in  spite  of  con- 
tinued communications  the  limitation  of  output  still  prevails,  together  with 
the  other  questions  at  issue,  namely,  the  disrating  of  the  foreman  (the 
employer's  agent)  by  the  union  and  unfair  competition  caused  by  union 
men  taking  contracts  which  enable  them  to  work  below  the  scale  which 
the  employer  is  forced  to  pay.  Moreover,  no  employer  is  allowed  to  work 
on  the  job  himself,  while  the  union  man  taking  contracts  is  granted  this 
privilege. 

From  the  affidavits  filed  with  this  brief,  referred  to  herein,  made  a 
part  hereof,  and  marked  respectively  Exhibits  Nos.  15-18,  it  will  be  seen 
that  since  August  14,  1913,  the  foremen  of  these  affiants  have  repeatedly 
advised  their  employers  that  they  dare  not  urge  their  men  to  do  that 
amount  of  work  each  day  which  could  readily  be  turned  out  by  a  work- 
man of  ordinary  ability  in  the  craft.  And  why  ?  Because  in  these  affidavits 
it  appears  in  many  instances  that,  though  made  foremen  by  their  employ- 
ers, they  are  disrated  by  the  union  for  attempting  to  get  from  their 
men  more  work  than  that  allowed  by  the  secret  understanding.  And  in 
each  of  these  affidavits  it  appears  that  the  foremen  advise  their  employers 
that  they  are  liable  not  only  to  be  disrated,  but  will  be  fined,  and  probably 
su/Ter,  if  persistent  in  their  efforts  to  obtain  from  their  men  a  fair  amount 
of  work,  physical  violence.  To  your  honorable  body  the  reasons  for  not 
setting  forth  the  names  of  these  foremen  is  obvious.  This  limitation  of 
output  is  no  new  thing,  as  evidenced  by  attached  affidavit.  (Exhibit 
No.  19.) 


no  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Denial  of  Restriction  Met  by  Facts 

We  may  be  met  by  the  statement  of  our  friends,  the  labor  leaders, 
that  this  pernicious  habit  of  limitation  of  output  is  not  sanctioned  by 
the  Composition  Roofers'  Union,  No.  25,  nor  by  the  building  trades 
council,  the  governing  body  in  this  jurisdiction.  And  they  will  point 
with  pride  to  the  fact  that  when  the  matter  was  brought  to  their  attention 
in  the  months  of  July  and  August,  1913,  they  went  on  record  as  dis- 
crediting such  a  practice.  They  will  further  tell  you  that  the  composi- 
tion roofers'  union  (Local  No.  25)  denied  on  the  floor  of  the  council 
that  the  union  had  even  had  such  an  agreement.  And  all  this  may  be 
true.  One  would  hardly  expect  a  union  to  go  on  record  as  limiting 
the  amount  of  work  its  members  could  do.  Nevertheless  all  their  denials 
can  not  change  the  fact  that  in  years  gone  by  these  same  men  did  more 
work  for  a  day's  wage  than  is  now  done,  can  not  change  the  sworn  state- 
ments of  employers  of  these  foremen,  intimately  in  touch  with  their 
employes,  who  know  what  is  going  on,  but  dare  not  come  into  the  open 
for  fear  of  violence  at  the  hands  of  their  fellow  members. 

The  difficulty  of  obtaining  reliable  data  upon  the  subject  of  secret 
agreements  to  limit  the  output  must  of  necessity  be  our  excuse  for  not 
presenting  concrete  instances  of  such  agreements  existing  in  each  craft. 
With  this  as  our  excuse  we  are  presenting  to  you  such  evidence  as  we 
can  command  relating  to  the  limitations  of  output,  first  among  carpen- 
ters ;  second,  plasterers ;  and  third,  upholsterers. 

The  best  obtainable  evidence  that  carpenters  are  careful  not  to  over- 
work is  found  on  page  29,  in  section  53,  of  the  By-Laws  and  Trade 
Rules  of  the  Bay  Counties  District  Council  of  Carpenters  and  Joiners  of 
America,  adopted  April  2,  1913,  a  true  copy  of  which  section  is  annexed 
hereto,  made  a  part  of  hereof,  and  marked  "Exhibit  No.  20."  It  reads : 

"Any  carpenter  can  prefer  charges  against  pace  makers,  and  any 
member  found  guilty  of  pace  setting,  or  rushing  members,  with  a  view 
of  holding  his  job,  and  bringing  up  the  other  members  employed  to  an 
excess  standard  of  speed  shall  be  fined  as  per  section  59." 

It  is  submitted  that  no  skilled  laborer  in  San  Francisco  has  even 
ever  been  compelled  to  be  a  "pacemaker"  to  hold  his  job,  and  we  read 
the  section  it  is  but  a  flimsy  cloak,  carrying  to  its  members  a  veiled 
threat  that  will  if  they  give  the  best  that  is  in  them  for  an  adequate  wage 
they  suffer  as  therein  prescribed. 

Further  comment  upon  it  would  be  an  insult  to  the  intelligence  of 
your  honorable  body. 

With  reference  to  the  limitation  of  output  among  plasterers  we  have 
but  to  say  that  we  are  creditably  informed  that  plasterers  or  those 
engaged  in  the  mixing  of  lime  are  not  allowed  to  mix  over  a  specified 
number  of  barrels  in  any  one  working  day,  irrespective  of  whether  or 
not  the  number  allowed  is  a  reasonable  one.  (Exhibit  No.  19.) 

(A  letter  of  the  National  Roofing  Company,  Oakland,  May 
22,  1914,  to  the  Master  Roofers  and  Manufacturers'  Association. 
Printed  on  page  5326  of  hearings  before  the  Industrial  Relations 
Commission. 

GENTLEMEN:     Herewith  I  submit  a  question  that  I  think  is  up  to 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  in 


our  association  to  handle.  About  three  weeks  ago  one  of  my  foremen 
and  his  entire  crew  were  summoned  before  the  union  to  which  they  belong 
on  a  charge  which  was  supposed  to  be  conduct  unbecoming  to  a  union 
man.  The  sum  and  substance  of  this  charge  is  that  the  crew  put  on 
more  work  than  the  secret  agreement  which  the  union  has  calls  for. 

They  were  tried  and  each  member  of  our  gang  was  fined  five  dollars 
and  the  foremanship  taken  away  from  my  foreman  for  a  period  of  one 
year.  My  foreman,  Mr.  E.  O'Connell,  took  his  case  before  the  building 
trades  council  and  Mr.  P.  H.  McCarthy  informed  him  that  he  would  not 
sanction  any  rule  which  put  a  curtailment  on  work. 

Then  they  called  a  meeting  where  our  men  and  the  representatives 
of  the  union  met  at  the  building  trades  council  last  Tuesday  evening. 
The  union  claimed  that  they  did  not  have  any  such  law  allowing  so  much 
work  to  be  done  in  one  day,  but  the  charge  was  that  the  work  was  not 
done  according  to  specifications,  whereupon  our  foreman  produced  a 
letter  from  the  contractor  on  this  work  accepting  the  work  and  saying 
that  he  was  entirely  satisfied  in  every  respect. 

Mr.  P.  H.  McCarthy  has  a  letter  from  our  crew,  signed  by  every 
man  that  they  were  fined  for  exceeding  the  limit  on  a  day's  work.  Hence 
you  can  see  how  the  matter  stands.  This  matter  has  been  put  over  and 
we  think  it  is  up  to  your  honorable  association  and  wish  you  would 
take  action  on  same  at  once. 

In  order  to  assist  you  in  the  details  in  this  matter ;  on  a  separate  paper 
I  am  giving  you  the  names  of  the  men  and  job,  etc.,  as  follows: 

Name  of  job:  Stillwell;  Contractors:  Harris  and  Hudson;  Location: 
Fruitvale  Avenue  and  Hopkins  Street,  Oakland.  Crew:  Foreman,  Mr. 
E.  A.  O'Connell;  laborers,  Mr.  J.  Finlon,  Mr.  Charles  Latimer,  Mr.  C. 
De  Mussett. 

Wages  Should  Be  Based  on  Production 

( From  an  address  by  Charles  N.  Piez,  president  of  the  Link- 
Belt  Company,  Chicago,  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Associa- 
tion of  America,  May  21,  1920.  Wages  should  be  based  on 
unhampered  production,  says  M.  Piez.) 

I  think  the  biggest  charge  that  can  be  brought  against  organized 
labor  (and  I  talk  now  particularly  of  my  own  industry — the  metal  trades 
industry)  is  that  for  years  it  has  been  following  methods  of  monopoly. 
It  has  limited  apprentices,  has  gradually  reduced  output,  has  attempted 
to  reduce  hours,  and  at  the  same  time  limited  in  every  way  the  rate  of 
production. 

I  recall  some  fourteen  years  ago,  when  a  breach  came,  in  our  Chicago 
plant  we  were  making  a  six-inch  case  iron  roller.  The  production  on 
that  roller  had  been  gradually  dwindling  and  finally  the  shop  steward 
said  that  sixty  of  those  six-inch  rollers  should  constitute  a  day's  work, 
and  so  a  full  grown  man,-  then  being  paid  current  rates  of  wages  per 
day,  was  turning  out  sixty  pieces  a  day.  He  had  a  tremendously  difficult 
job  to  appear  busy  doing  that  little  work,  and  as  we  watched  him  we 
argued  with  the  shop  steward  about  it.  I  finally  said  that  we  could 
bring  a  green  man  into  that  place  and  that  he  could  turn  out  one  hundred 


H2  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

good  rollers  a  day.  Afterwards  one  man  turtfed  out  one  hundre 
and  eighty  of  those  rollers  and  he  is  still  doing  it.  This  man's  work  ha 
been  written  up  by  Miss  Ida  Tarbell.  He  is  a  stalwart  fine  fellow 
there  is  no  evidence  of  fatigue;  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  is  ovei 
worked. 

I  cite  this  case  to  indicate  that  when  we  get  normal  productio 
under  the  commands  of  an  officer  of  union  organization  down  to  thirty 
three  and  one-third  per  cent  of  where  it  belongs,  it's  time  that  some 
body  should  ask  some  questions. 

I  think  that  a  good  deal  of  the  present  day  unrest  is  due  to  th 
fact  that  we  have  lost  sight  wholly  of  the  relationship  between  produc 
tion  and  wages.  Personally,  I  have  always  felt  that  production  was  th 
only  sane  basis  for  wages.  And  I  recognize,  too,  that  piece  work,  so-called 
has  been  badly  worked  by  some  employers;  worked  to  the  disadvantag 
of  the  men  for  many  years,  and  I  can  appreciate  very  much  why  ther< 
should  be  strong  prejudice  against  it. 

But  after  all,  that  does  not  set  aside  the  fact  that  paying  rates  on  th< 
basis  of  production  is  the  only  common  sense  way  of  rewarding  labor 
I  am  perfectly  willing  that  both  sides  should  have  a  hand  in  deter 
mining  what  the  rates  should  be,  but  to  deny  absolutely  the  effort  am 
right  to  pay  on  a  production  basis,  I  think  is  economically  unsound  anc 
is  bound  to  lead  to  trouble  in  the  end. 

Typical  Opposition  to  Labor-saving  Machinery 

(From  article  "The  Stonecutters'  Union  and  the  Stone- 
Planer,''  by  Professor  of  Economics  George  E.  Barnett,  oi 
Johns  Hopkins  University.  Printed  in  the  Journal  of  Political 
Economy  May,  1916.  Typical  union  opposition  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  labor-saving  machinery.) 

Machines  for  planing  stone  have  been  used  for  many  years.  The 
original  machines  were  simply  iron-planers  slightly  reconstructed,  and 
were  worked  by  a  gear-and-rack  drive.  They  were  successful  in  planing 
flaggings  and  other  paving  material  for  which  a  smooth  surface  was  not 
required,  but  could  not  be  used  on  building  material.  About  1880  a  new 
type  of  planer  was  designed,  in  which  a  screw  was  substituted  for  the 
gear-and-rack  drive.  A  regular  motion  was  thus  attained,  and  the  machine 
became  a  practicable  means  of  working  building  stone. 

When  the  planers  were  first  introduced  much  was  said  about  the 
injury  they  did  to  the  stone,  and  it  was  asserted  that  planed  stone  soon 
disintegrated.  The  strong  desire  of  some  of  the  workmen  to  discredit 
the  machines  induced  them  to  exaggerate  the  injury  done.  A  writer  in 
the  Stone  Cutters'  Journal  for  March,  1893,  declared  that  the  surface  of 
planed  stone  rotted  and  the  projections  fell  off.  It  has  long  been  under- 
stood in  the  trade  that  planer-cut  stone  is  fully  as  durable  as  that  cut 
by  hand  if  the  planing  is  properly  done,  but  that  the  planer  may  be  made 
to  run  so  deep  as  to  "bruise"  the  stone. 

The  amount  of  labor  saved  by  the  use  of  a  planer  is  difficult  to 
estimate,  since  the  advantage  over  handwork  is  largely  relative  to  the 
class  of  stone  and  the  kind  of  cutting.  A  single-platen  planer  of  im- 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  113 


proved  type  when  engaged  on  the  work  in  which  the  planer  is  most 
superior  to  handwork  will  do  about  as  much  work  in  an  hour  as  ten 
stone  cutters.  The  number  of  planers  in  use  on  building  stone  in  the 
United  States  in  1915  was  about  1,000.  Each  of  these  probably  does, 
on  an  average,  an  amount  of  work  which  would  require  seven  or  eight 
stone  cutters.  The  stone-planers  now  in  operation  in  the  United  States 
on  building  stone,  therefore,  do  the  amount  of  work  which  would  require 
seven  or  eight  thousand  hand  cutters. 

Labor-Saving   Machinery   Reduces   Prices 

As  in  the  case  of  all  inventions  of  labor-saving  machinery,  except 
where  monopolized,  the  planer  has  brought  substantial  reductions  in  the 
price  of  the  commodity. 

In  the  period  since  1900  the  use  of  other  labor-saving  devices  besides 
the  planer  has  been  extended  in  the  stone  trade.  Pneumatic  tools  and 
diamond  pointed  saws  have  taken  over  much  of  the  stone  cutter's  work. 
It  may  be  roughly  estimated  that  in  1900  there'  were  between  20,000 
and  25,000  stone  cutters  in  the  United  States.  The  labor-saving  devices 
now  in  the  use  of  the  trade,  the  greater  part  of  which  have  been  intro- 
duced since  1900,  do  an  amount  of  work  which,  at  the  lowest  estimate, 
would  require  the  labor  of  10,000  hand  cutters. 

Until  1895  the  stone  cutters  did  not  concern  themselves  about  the 
planer.  The  number  of  planers  in  use  was  small,  and  they  were  to  be 
found  chiefly  at  the  quarries,  where  the  stone  cutters  were  either  unor- 
ganized or  organized  in  independent  local  unions.  The  first  impulse  to 
the  formulation  of  a  national  policy  was  given  by  the  attempts  first  to 
control  and  later  to  prohibit  the  use  of  the  planer,  inaugurated  in  1895 
by  the  Chicago  local  union  of  stone  cutters. 

The  use  of  planers  in  Chicago  began  about  1892.  The  local  union 
in  1895  asked  unsuccessfully  for  the  ^insertion  in  the  agreement  with  the 
Chicago  cut-stone  contractors  of  provisions  limiting  the  hours  during 
which  the  machines  were  to  be  operated,  and  requiring  that  the  planers 
should  be  operated  by  union  men.  In  January,  1896,  the  union  insisted 
that  the  planers  should  not  run  more  than  eight  hours  a  day,  and  a 
strike  ensued.  The  strike  was  settled  by  an  agreement  made  on  April  15. 
The  planers  were  to  be  operated  only  eight  hours  per  day  and  six 
days  per  week,  and  the  laborers  employed  as  planermen  were  to  be 
replaced,  in  part  immediately,  and  by  degrees  entirely,  with  stonecutters. 
The  union  in  return  agreed  not  to  work  on  any  stone  which  had  been 
planed  outside  of  Chicago,  and  to  "keep  out  all  stonework  not  planed  or 
cut  in  Chicago." 

In  1898  the  Chicago  union  demanded  that  for  every  planer  operated 
the  contractor  should  employ  at  least  four  stonecutters  with  hammer  and 
chisel.  The  actual  proportion  in  most  of  the  yards  was  far  below  this, 
and  the  contractors  refused  to  accede. 

After  a  strike  of  ten  weeks  a  compromise  was  effected  under  which 
the  contractors  agreed  to  employ  two  stonecutters  for  every  single  planer 
and  four  stonecutters  for  every  double  planer.  In  January,  1899,  the  union 
notified  the  contractors  that  they  would  not  work  after  April  i  in  any 
yard  where  machinery,  except  saws  and  rubbing  beds,  was  used.  The 


ii4  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

contractors  secured  an  extension  of  time  to  June  I,  but  on  that  date 
all  the  planers  in  Chicago  stopped.  The  value  of  the  machinery  thrown 
out  of  use  was  estimated  at  over  $100,000.  Planers  were  not  used  in 
Chicago  from  June  I,  1899,  until  after  the  build-trades  strike  of  1900. 

A  number  of  branches  of  the  General  Union  followed  the  example 
of  the  Chicago  union  in  imposing  restrictions  on  the  operation  of  the 
planer. 

During  the  period  from  1896  to  1900  a  beginning  was  also  made  by 
the  local  organizations  in  another  form  of  restriction ;  the  prohibition 
of  the  shipment  of  planer-cut  stone  into  cities  where  the  local  union  was 
opposed  to  its  use. 

Planer-cut  stone  has  been  excluded  from  some  localities  on  the  ground 
that  the  working  conditions  at  the  shipping-point  were  inferior  to  those 
at  the  place  of  erection,  but  about  1896  a  number  of  branches  in  which 
there  were  no  planers  began  to  exclude  all  planer-cut  stone. 

The  opposition  to  the  planer  increased  so  rapidly  that  in  January, 
1900,  the  executive  board  of  the  General  Union  was  called  into  session. 
As  a  result  of  their  deliberations,  the  members  of  the  board  determined 
to  add  to  the  constitution  of  the  General  Union  two  new  rules:  (i) 
"Planer  work  will  not  be  permitted  to  be  shipped  into  any  city  where 
the  union  has  succeeded  in  abolishing  them;"  (2)  "Branches  shall  make 
every  effort  possible  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  planers  in  their 
jurisdiction." 

Of  the  two  new  rules  adopted,  the  rule  restricting  the  shipment  of 
planer-cut  stone  was  far  the  more  important.  It  was  modified  from  time 
to  time,  but  remained  in  force  from  1900  until  1908.  It  will  be  con- 
venient, therefore,  to  neglect  the  strict  chronology  of  events,  and,  before 
taking  account  of  other  rules  relating  to  the  planer,  to  trace  the  operation 
of  th^s  rule  through  its  entire  history. 

Intolerable  Situation  Caused  by  Union  Attitude 
By  1908  the  situation  had  become  intolerable.  At  a  convention  held 
in  that  year  sentiment  was  strongly  against  the  continuance  of  the  restric- 
tion on  the  shipment  of  planer-cut  stone.  The  majority  of  the  "com- 
mittee on  the  transportation  of  cut  stone"  recommended  that  the  branches 
should  be  forbidden  to  restrict  the  shipment  of  stone,  provided  wages  and 
hours  at  the  shipping  and  the  receiving  points  were  equal.  Certain 
branches,  however,  notably  St.  Louis,  complained  bitterly  that  they  had 
been  able  to  keep  out  planer-cut  stone  and  that  this  rule  would  force 
them  to  allow  its  introduction.  Finally,  the  convention  decided  to  repeal 
entirely  the  rule  relating  to  the  transportation  of  stone,  leaving  it  to  each 
branch  to  decide  whether  it  would  attempt  to  keep  out  planer-cut  stone. 
Since  the  rule  of  the  General  Union  was  repealed,  a  branch  which 
determined  on  a  policy  of  exclusion  could  not  expect  the  aid  of  the  shipping 
branches.  The  repeal  of  the  rules  relating  to  the  shipment  of  cut  stone 
was  ratified  by  a  branch  vote  of  957  to  521. 

The  original  policy  of  the  General  Union  toward  the  planer,  as  has 
been  already  noted,  consisted  of  two  parts :  first,  restriction  of  the 
shipment  of  planer-cut  stone,  and,  second,  opposition  to  the  introduction 
of  planers  in  places  where  they  were  not  in  use.  At  the  session  of  the 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  115 


General  Union  in  1900,  when  the  first  rule  against  the  shipment  of  planer- 
cut  stone  was  enacted,  the  branches  were  urged  to  "make  every  effort 
possible  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  planers  in  their  jurisdiction." 
If  the  rule  against  the  shipment  of  planer-cut  stone  could  have  been 
enforced,  many  branches  would  have  struggled  vigorously  against  the 
introduction  of  planers.  But  where  it  was  impracticable  to  keep  out 
planer-cut  stone  it  was  distinctly  to  the  advantage  of  the  branch  to 
have  the  contractors  instal  planers,  since  the  members  of  the  branch 
got  what  the  machine  left  of  the  home  work,  and,  in  many  cases,  of  work 
for  the  outside.  Under  such  conditions,  therefore,  the  branches  did  not 
oppose  the  introduction  of  planers. 

Although  the  national  union  at  first  confined  its  efforts  to  limiting 
the  extension  of  the  field  of  the  planer,  its  policy  was  soon  enlarged  by 
rules  relating  to  the  operation  of  the  planer.  There  were  two  of  these 
rules:  (i)  the  rule  restricting  the  number  of  hours  a  planer  might  be 
operated:  (2)  the  requirement  that  planermen  should  be  stonecutters. 
A  third  rule — that  a  shop  must  employ  a  certain  number  of  hand  cutters 
for  each  planer — was  also  adopted  by  a  number  of  branches,  although  it 
never  attained  the  dignity  of  a  national  rule.  The  first  and  third  rules 
were  designed,  like  the  rule  against  the  shipment  of  planer-cut  stone  and 
the  rule  against  the  introduction  of  planers,  to  check  the  displacement 
of  hand  cutters,  and  it  will,  therefore,  be  convenient  to  consider  these 
two  first. 

In  January,  1904,  the  National  Cut  Stone  Contractors'  Association 
had  been  formed.  One  of  the  purposes  of  the  new  organization  was  to 
protect  its  members  against  the  stonecutters  and  particularly  against  the 
restrictions  on  the  use  of  machinery.  In  Chicago,  and  later  in  New  York, 
its  members  were  closely  allied  with  the  dual  stonecutters'  unions;  but 
in  other  cities  the  members  of  the  association  employed  stonecutters 
who  were  members  of  branches  of  the  General  Union.  At  its  second 
session,  in  November,  1904,  the  National  Association  decided  to  offer 
general  resistance  to  all  restrictions  on  the  operation  of  the  planers 
and  on  the  shipment  of  stone.  It  adopted  the  following  resolutions, 
which  were  to  be  posted  in  all  the  shops  of  its  members:  "First,  that 
we  shall  run  our  machinery  without  restrictions  as  to  hours  or  as 
to  whom  we  shall  employ  to  operate  them;  second,  we  shall  cut  and  ship 
cut  stone  without  any  restrictions  as  to  the  place  or  local  conditions." 
The  adoption  of  these  rules  did  not  provoke  a  general  conflict,  chiefly 
because  at  the  time  the  membership  of  the  association  was  small.  As  it 
extended  its  influence,  however,  a  series  of  engagements  between  the 
General  Union  and  the  association  occurred. 

The  introduction  of  the  planer  and  other  labor-saving  devices  has 
led  everywhere  to  considerable  changes  in  the  character  of  stone  con- 
tracting plants.  The  contractors  have  erected  substantial  buildings, 
equipped  with  hoisting  and  other  devices.  The  sheds  are  usually  larger, 
and,  therefore,  freer  from  dust,  than  formerly.  Also,  the  seasonal  fluc- 
tuations in  employment  have  been  reduced,  because  the  more  substantial 
sheds  heated  by  steam  have  made  winter  work  possible.  These  changes 
have  been  due  to  the  necessity  of  investing  large  sums  in  machinery  and 


n6  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

the   consequent   desire   to    run   the   machines   as    nearly    continuously   as 
possible. 

Business  Agents  Tell  Men  to  Loaf 

(Effort  of  closed  shop  unions  to  increase  production  costs 
to  contractors  and  the  public  are  revealed  in  the  following  from 
the  New  Sky  Line,  Little  Rock,  March  13,  1920.) 

"Killing  the  goose  that  laid  the  golden  egg,"  is  an  old  aphorism,  used 
to  characterize  the  mistakes  of  people  who  destroy  the  foundation  upon 
which  their  well-beings  rests.  So  it  was  with  the  Plumbers'  Union  last 
November,  when  they  loaded  up  their  perfectly  good  contract  with  work- 
ing regulations  that  the  Master  Plumbers  would  not  accept,  and  then 
broke  their  perfectly  good  contract  and  went  out  on  a  strike  to  enforce 
the  perfectly  bad  regulations.  The  bad  regulations  provided  for  addi- 
tional time  on  plumbing  work.  No  additional  time  was  necessary.  Noth- 
ing had  occurred  to  require  increased  time  in  which  to  do  certain  tasks. 
The  demand  was  a  capricious  one,  no  tangible  reason  existing.  No  mater- 
ial profit  or  gain  could  accrue  to  the  plumbers;  no  advantage  to  the 
union.  It  was  apparently  an  effort  to  prolong  the  time  and  increase  the 
cost  to  the  contractors  and  the  public,  and  delay  the  completion  of  work, 
in  order  to  make  the  plumbing  work  last  longer,  and  thus  increase  the 
volume  of  plumbing  work  in  proportion  to  the  manpower  of  the  plumbers 
or  to  coerce  the  contractors  into  raising  the  scale  of  wages  before  the 
expiration  of  the  contract  then  in  existence.  The  contract  had  been  made 
June  i,  1919,  for  one  dollar  per  hour  and  an  eight-hour  day,  the  contract 
extending  to  June  i,  1920.  The  public  is  familiar  with  the  time  regula- 
tions the  business  agent  tried  to  put  over  on  the  Master  Plumbers.  The 
business  agent  constituted  himself  .an  interpreter  of  the  regulations,  and 
undertook  to  direct  how  much  time  the  workmen  should  devote  to  the 
jobs  in  which  they  were  assigned.  His  object  was  not  to  lower  the  cost 
or  increase  the  efficiency,  but  to  lengthen  the  time  and  increase  the  cost 
to  the  public.  This  is  evidenced  by  an  affidavit  of  one  of  the  workmen, 
a  competent  mechanic,  with  a  disposition  to  be  fair  and  honest.  He  was 
not  a  regular  attendant  upon  the  union  meetings,  where  the  un-American 
and  Bolshevik  regulations  were  born  and  propagated.  He  was  a  worker 
who  did  an  honest  day's  work  for  an  honest  day's  wage;  was  willing  to 
deliver  the  goods,  and  wanted  to  be  fair  and  just.  The  work  in  question 
was  a  steam  fitting  job  at  the  Christian  Science  Church,  on  Twentieth  and 
Louisiana  Streets.  William  Peterson  was  the  general  contractor,  and  the 
Pettit-Galloway  Company  had  the  steam  fitting  contract  as  sub-contractors. 
D.  B.  Clark,  a  member  of  Union  No.  155  was  in  their  employ,  and  was 
assigned  to  the  work.  The  blueprints  were  given  to  him  by  the  foreman 
on  November  17,  1919.  After  work  hours  he  dropped  in  at  the  pool  hall 
on  West  Capitol,  the  Union  headquarters.  There  he  met  Strode,  the 
business  agent  of  Local  No.  155,  who  asked  to  see  them.  He  kept  the 
blueprints  to  look  them  over,  returning  them  later.  When  Clark  called  for 
the  blueprints  the  next  morning  and  went  out  on  the  work,  he  found  a 
card  or  piece  of  paper  wrapper  around  them.  On  the  papers  was  written 


OUTPUT  RESTRICTION  1 1 7 


"D.  B.  Clark;  thirty-four  days.  Destroy  this.  Burn  it."  To  be  sure  that 
his  directions  were  followed,  he  personally  appeared  on  the  job  a  few  days 
later.  When  Clark  protested  against  putting  in  unnecessary  time  on  the 
job,  the  business  agent  used  his  everready  weapon,  the  Union  threat,  and 
told  him  if  he  did  not  put  in  thirty-four  days  on  the  job  the  local  would 
fine  him.  Clark  failed  to  destroy  the  card  on  which  the  instructions  were 
written.  He  did  not  burn  it.  He  worked  six  days  and  six  hours,  and 
then  had  to  stop  on  account  of  sickness.  Before  he  recovered  the  Union 
men  went  out  on  a  strike,  and  refused  to  arbitrate,  the  business  agent 
claiming  they  were  striking  for  a  principle,  and  not  more  money,  but 
told  the  Master  Plumbers  that  if  they  would  agree  to  more  money  he 
would  waive  the  odious  regulations.  On  December  29,  Clark  went  back 
on  the  same  job,  and  completed  it  in  workmanlike  order,  the  full  time 
employed  being  twenty-one  days,  and  says  that  if  he  had  been  a  well 
man  he  could  have  completed  the  work  in  seventeen  days.  This  discloses 
the  kind  of  principle  the  business  agent  was  striving  to  establish  and  main- 
tain, and  for  which  the  journeymen  plumbers,  steam  and  gas  fitters  of 
Local  Union  No.  155  went  on  a  strike.  Thus  they  "blew  up,"  "killed  the 
goose  that  laid  the  golden  egg,"  and  found  themselves  out  of  employment 
and  facing  the  Open  Shop  and  Square  Deal,  where  no  such  Bolshevik 
or  un-American  conduct  is  countenanced.  (This  is  supported  by  an 
affidavit  from  D.  B.  Clark.) 

Our  Lesson  from  England's  Experience 

During  the  war,  trade  union  output  restrictions  threatened 
to  defeat  England.  Lloyd  George,  whose  policy  had  always  been 
to  throw  his  influence  in  favor  of  the  unions,  found  it  necessary 
to  personally  beg  the  unions  to  suspend  their  rules  and  practices 
so  that  production  could  be  secured.  In  one  of  these  appeals  he 
said :  "If  we  had  a  suspension  during  the  war  of  these  customs 
which  keep  down  the  output,  we  could  increase  it  some  places  by 
30  per  cent,  in  other  places  by  200  per  cent.  Between  30  and 
200  per  cent — well,  you  know  that  makes  the  difference  between 
victory  and  defeat."  Matters  in  the  field  of  production  finally 
reached  an  acute  crisis  which  resulted  in  the  celebrated  agree- 
ment between  the  government  and  the  unions  under  which  union 
rules  were  suspended,  non-union  men  and  women  were  permitted 
to  be  employed,  and  unskilled  workers  were  permitted  to  be 
placed  upon  unskilled  .work  which  formerly  union  men  had 
arrogated  to  themselves.  In  other  words — and  this  is  the  first 
lesson  to  be  learned  from  the  English  experience — England  found 
it  necessary  to  lay  aside  the  closed  shop  and  to  adopt  the  open 
shop  in  order  to  save  herself  from  defeat.  In  all  its  chief  essen- 
tials the  agreement  between  the  government  and  the  unions  by 


u8  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

which  production  was  brought  up  to  a  proper  level  was  an  open- 
shop  agreement. 

Is  it  not  clear,  in  the  light  of  England's  experience,  that 
domination  of  our  Government  and  control  of  our  industries  by 
closed-shop  unionism  is  a  condition  most  destructive  of  national 
preparedness  for  the  exigencies  of  war?  If  the  uneconomic  and 
destructive  practices  of  closed-shop  unionism  are  fastened  upon 
our  industries,  what  will  be  the  fate  of  our  national  hope  for  trade 
expansion  and  trade  supremacy  ? 

Typical  Closed  Shop  Restriction 

Testimony  before  a  special  investigating  committee  of  the 
Illinois  legislature  has  revealed  deplorable  conditions  in  the  union 
controlled  building  industry  of  Chicago.  Combinations  such  as 
exist  in  New  York  City  (see  ChapterXVII)  have  been  brought  to 
light.  The  following  facts  are  typical  of  the  testimony  still  (May 
25,  1921)  being  offered  to  the  commission: 

Payment  of  $100,000  cash  in  the  construction  of  Chicago's  new  Union 
Depot  as  demanded  by  labor  officials. 

Material  and  labor  from  outside  Chicago  can  be  used  only  on  the 
payment  of  "subsidies"  or  "contributions"  to  union  leaders. 

Most  theatre  seats  are  made  in  open  shops;  the  unions  collect  from  $i. 
to  $5.  a  seat  for  their  installation,  under  threat  of  strikes. 

Sellers  of  furniture  for  new  buildings  wished  to  polish  the  furniture 
after  its  installation.  They  were  not  allowed  to  use  their  own  employes, 
and  a  strike  was  threatened  unless  union  painters  were  employed  for  the 
work  at  $1.25  an  hour. 

Riveters  employed  in  the  construction  of  the  Webster  Hotel  were 
reprimanded  by  their  union  because  they  put  in  more  than  250  rivets  in 
one  day. 

Cincinnati  union  painters  are  now  attempting  to  force  their 
employers  to  accept  rules  limiting  the  width  of  paint  brushes  to 
4^  inches  and  providing  that  painters  may  not  carry  over  5 
pounds  of  paint  at  a  time. 


OPEN  SHOP  EFFICIENCY  AND  PRODUCTION  COMPARISONS  119 

CHAPTER  XI. 
Open  Shop  Efficiency  and  Production  Comparisons 

This  chapter  will  explain  the  manner  in  which  efficiency  of 
open  shop  operation  is  greater  than  that  in  closed  shops.  As  far 
as  possible  it  will  make  comparisons  as  to  actual  efficiency. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Walter  Gordon  Merritt,  then 
Counsel  for  the  American  Anti-Boycott  Association,  at  present 
counsel  for  the  League  for  Industrial  Rights,  before  the  Indus- 
trial Relations  Commission,  May  25,  1914.  Mr.  Merritt  explains 
the  fundamental  causes  for  increased  operating  cost  in  closed 
shop  plants.) 

COM.MISSIONER  GARRETSON  :  Are  union  shops  less  efficiently  handled 
than  non-union? 

MR.  MERRITT:     I  think  so,  usually. 

COMMISSIONER  GARRETSON:  In  other  words,  a  man  that  will  deal 
with  the  unions  has  his  faculties  impaired  thereby  or  what? 

MR.  MERRITT:  No,  sir.  The  union  is  very  apt  to  insist  upon  a  voice 
in  matters  of  management  you  have  taken  from  the  employer  who  has 
become  the  logical  head  by  a  process  of  selection,  and  so  must  be  the 
most  capable  of  running  the  business,  and  the  divided  control  results  in 
less  efficiency. 

COMMISSIONER  GARRETSON:  Is  any  human  entitled  to  more  voice  in 
his  wage  and  the  conditions  of  his  service  than  the  man  who  accepts 
the  wage  and  performs  the  service? 

MR.  MERRITT:  Why  absolutely;  the  employer  is  entitled  to  more 
voice  in  certain  things  in  the  management  of  his  business  than  the 
employes  who  work  under  him  and  give  the  service. 

MR.  GARRETSON  :    The  owner  ? 

MR.  MERRITT:     Yes,  sir. 

(From  a  monograph  'The  Closed  vs.  The  Open  Shop,"  by 
Ernest  F.  Lloyd,  published  by  the  National  Industrial  Conference 
Board.) 

As  against  the  employer,  the  closed  shop  practically  limits  his  per- 
sonal selection  of  employes  to  a  choice  of  union  workers.  These  may 
or  may  not  be  in  his  opinion  suitable  for  the  work  in  hand,  or  they  may 
be  otherwise  undesirable.  Equally,  the  disciplinary  power  of  the  em- 
ployer is  curtailed  or  abrogated  and  his  methods  of  compensation  regu- 
lated. These  limitations  may  so  increase  the  cost  of  production  and  the 
bazards  of  operation  that  the  employer  may  be  subjected  to  unsustainable 
financial  loss. 

(From  "The  Closed  Shop  in  American  Trade  Unions,"  by 
Dr.  Frank  T.  Stockton.  Published  by  Johns  Hopkins  Univer- 
sity, 1911.  Pages  174  and  175.) 

To   sum   up   the  arguments   against  the  closed   shop  on   the  ground 


I2O  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

that  it  affects  unfavorably  the  economic  conduct  of  industry,  it  may  be 
said  that  the  crux  of  the  question  is  whether  or  not  the  "right  to  hire 
and  discharge"  is  unduly  restricted  under  the  closed  shop.  The  employer 
may  enjoy  the  use  of  a  valuable  label  and  may  be  placed  on  a  "fair 
competitive  basis"  with  other  employers.  Individually  the  employer  may 
reap  a  gain.  But  in  the  long  run  industry  will  be  carried  on  less 
efficiently  if  by  waiting  lists  or  other  restrictive  devices  the  union  inter- 
feres with  the  employer's  hiring  and  discharging  his  working  force  in 
accordance  with  his  best  judgment.  Similarly,  a  "closed  union"  restricts 
the  employer  in  his  choice  of  workmen.  In  those  unions  in  which  such 
practices  exist  the  closed  shop  is  to  be  condemned  in  that  it  is  only 
through  the  device  of  the  closed  shop  that  waiting  lists  and  arbitrary 
restrictions  on  membership  can  be  made  workable. 

Computing  Operating  Costs 

Mr.  Harvey  A.  Patterson,  president  of  the  National  Associa- 
tion of  Merchant  Tailors,  prepared  the  following  statement 
for  the  Open  Shop  Bulletin.  This  statement  answers  the  claim 
that  closed  shop  employers  benefit  by  being  able  to  compete 
because  of  equal  wage  and  other  conditions. 

The  open  shop  or  American  plan  permits  of  greater  efficiency  in 
the  merchant  tailoring  industry  especially  in  the  fine  trade,  as  the  journey- 
men work  on  the  piece  system  which  enables  the  merchant  to  estimate 
his  costs  accurately  and  gives  the  worker  greater  opportunity  to  reap 
the  reward  of  his  labors,  particularly  if  he  is  competent  and  ambitious. 
The  weekly  wage  system  imposed  upon  a  small  group  of  merchant 
tailors  in  this  city  by  the  union,  at  the  same  time  the  trade  at  large  made 
such  a  game  and  successful  fight  for  its  industrial  freedom  and  established 
the  open  shop,  has  practically  demoralized  the  entire  manufacturing 
methods  of  the  unionized  firms,  and  they  cannot  compute  costs  to  any 
degree  of  certainty.  The  amount  of  production  cannot  be  estimated 
even,  there  being  no  guarantee  by  the  workers  as  to  how  much  work 
they  shall  do,  and  of  course,  the  number  of  garments  turned  out  under 
those  conditions,  and  in  accordance  with  union  theories,  is  kept  down  to 
the  minimum. 

Under  the  open  shop  plan,  the  more  prominent  and  successful  mer- 
chant tailors  see  some  hope  of  getting  their  selling  prices  down  through 
increased  efficiency.  Under  union  control,  however,  there  is  no  possible 
chance,  and  the  merchant  tailor  today  who  is  tied  up  to  a  union  agree- 
ment faces  absolute  ruin. 

Benefit  of  Scientific  Production 

(From  Pamphlet  No.  3,  March  i,  1920,  of  the  Associated 
Industries  of  Tacoma.  This  points  out  the  benefits  to  the  employer 
of  scientific  output,  which  closed  shop  unionism  opposes.) 

When  we  say  that  the  price  of  labor  is  seventy-five  cents  we  do  not 
know  what  this  means.  There  are  measures  or  quantities  by  which  to 
sell  goods  or  real  estate,  but  when  it  comes  to  buying  labor  we  have  no 


OPEN  SHOP  EFFICIENCY  AND  PRODUCTION  COMPARISONS  121 

measure  nor  can  we  estimate  its  value  by  personal  observations  except 
after  the  labor  is  done,  which  is  long  after  the  so-called  bargaining  took 
place  and  long  after  the  price  was  set.  It  is  true  that  labor  is  sold  by 
the  hour,  but  the  hour  is  a  measure  of  time  and  not  of  labor.  We  might 
just  as  well  sell  eggs  by  the  yard  and  without  even  specifying  whether 
we  lay  them  lengthwise  or  crosswise. 

With  the  piecework  system,  the  employer  knows  exactly  what  he 
will  get  for  his  money,  but  the  employe  makes  a  guess  as  to  how  much 
he  can  reasonably  do.  He  has  no  control  over  the  conditions  which 
will  enable  him  to  do  or  prevent  him  from  doing  as  much  as  he  is 
expected  to. 

There  are  various  kinds  of  bonus  systems.  The  employe  may  earn  his 
regular  wages  and  get  a  bonus  at  stated  intervals  if  his  work  exceeds  the 
expectations  of  his  employer.  Then  there  is  the  task  and  bonus  plan, 
in  which  case  there  is  less  guessing  and  more  of  an  attempt  at  a  definite 
bargain.  The  success  of  this  plan  rests  upon  the  earnestness  of  the 
employer  with  which  such  a  system,  and  whether  or  not  he  sees  to  it 
that  it  is  possible  for  the  employe  to  fulfil  his  task,  in  which  event  this 
system  approaches  quite  closely  to  true  bargaining. 

The  premium  system  is  an  attempt  to  gain  the  interest  of  the  employe 
to  make  him  invent  improvements  in  the  method  of  working  and  sharing 
the  profits  with  him. 

This,  however,  requires  careful  study  of  time,  conditions  of  ma- 
chinery and  tools,  and  may  lead  to  controversies  and  injustices. 

Open  Shop  Increases  Production 

Under  date  of  November  2, 1920,  the  Manufacturers'  Bureau, 
of  .the  Civic  and  Commercial  Association,  of  Denver,  informed 
us  that  the  street  car  strike  there  last  summer  "was  in  fact  a  battle 
for  the  open  shop."  At  the  present  time  "the  tramway  system  is 
being  operated  efficiently  on  an  open  shop  basis." 

November  15,  1920,  the  New  York  Herald  printed  a  number 
of  telegrams  from  various  cities  as  to  the  success  of  the  open  shop. 
Some  of  these  were  shortened.  Several  extremely  interesting 
sentences  were  omitted  from  the  telegram  of  the  Associated 
Industries  of  Seattle. 

Workingmen  have  seen  it  to  their  interest  to  work  on  the  open  shop 
plan  regardless  of  union  affiliation,  which  they  have  or  have  not  main- 
tained, each  man  according  to  his  individual  desire  *  *  *  industrial 
relationships  were  never  better  here,  and  sound  industrial  conditions  are 
offered  new  industries.  In  the  late  election  the  radicals  were  snowed 
under.  The  Associated  Industries,  with  two  thousand  firms  as  members, 
is  not  out  to  smash  labor  unions,  but  to  bring  harmony  and  industrial 
"peace.  Production  increased  as  much  as  35  per  cent,  in  case  of  long- 
shoremen. 


122  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

The  Citizens  Alliance  of  Minneapolis  informed  us  on 
December  4,  1920: 

One  of  the  largest  retail  furriers  who  conducts  a  fairly  good  sized 
shop,  stated  a  few  days  ago  that  since  they  had  declared  for  the  open 
shop  their  efficiency  has  increased  tremendously  and  that  for  the  first 
time  they  are  really  happy  in  their  work. 

The  newspapers  of  Aberdeen,  South  Dakota,  about  two 
months  ago  established  the  open  shop.  Mr.  J.  H.  McKeever, 
publisher  of  two  daily  papers,  wrote  as  follows  under  date  of 
December  28th,  1920: 

We  are  gaining  vastly  in  increased  efficiency.  I  was  told  the  other 
day  by  our  superintendent  that  we  were  getting  at  least  one-fourth  more 
work  than  during  the  old  regime.  The  wage  scale  has  not  been  reduced 
nor  is  it  likely  to  be,  but  we  are  getting  for  the  same  amount  of  money 
much  more  work  and  conditions  in  the  composing  and  press  rooms  are 
more  harmonious  and  pleasant. 

The  causes  leading  up  to  our  adoption  of  the  open  shop  policy  was 
our  desire  to  free  ourselves  from  the  unreasonable  and  unfair,  as  well 
as  uncertain  domination  of  our  business  by  men  controlling  the  union, 
though  they  formed  so  small  a  proportion  of  the  employes  in  our  plant. 

A  letter  of  January  5,  1921,  from  the  Buffalo  Commercial  state's 
their  open  shop  linotype  operators  average  52,000  ems  in  eight 

hours,  as  compared  with  28,000  in  closed  shop  plants: 

• 

The  average  printer  in  a  unionized  office  is  permitted  to  deliver  only 
40  to  50  per  cent,  of  his  normal  productive  capacity.  *  *  *  Our  ex- 
perience has  been  such  as  to  justify  us  in  believing  that  where  operators 
are  employed  on  a  piece-work  basis  wherein  they  receive  a  pro  rata  com- 
pensation for  such  production  as  they  deliver  over  and  above  the  union 
maximum,  that  their  weekly  wages  would  easily  average  75  per  cent, 
above  the  basic  rate  <paid. 

The  Standard  Pattern  Company  of  North  Tonawanda,  New 
York,  informs  us  in  a  letter  of  January  13,  1920,  that  on  March 
6,  1920,  they  abandoned  the  closed  shop. 

After  a  few  adjustments  we  found  that  the  men  were  more  congenial 
and  turned  out  20  per  cent,  more  work  than  under  the  closed  shop 
conditions. 

The  1920  annual  report  of  the  Dallas  Chamber  of  Commerce 
says: 

The  open  shop  movement  in  Dallas  has  increased  labor  efficiency, 
making  possible  Dallas'  present  reputation  as  one  of  the  nation's  highest 
wage  cities.  The  increased  labor  efficiency,  furthermore,  more  than  off- 
sets the  increased  wages,  insofar  as  the  cost  of  the  finished  product  is 
concerned. 


OPEN  SHOP  EFFICIENCY  AND  PRODUCTION  COMPARISONS  123 

President  Levy,  of  the  Pacific  Coast  Association  of  Merchant 
Tailors,  writes  in  the  October,  1920,  bulletin  of  the  National  Asso- 
ciation : 

If  I  were  to  say  that  our  Open  Shop  Association  is  wonderful  I 
would  be  putting  it  mildly.  It  has  brought  results.  First  of  all,  production 
is  far  greater  than  before  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  and  with  the  same 
number  of  men,  which  naturally  reduces  the  cost  of  making,  giving  us  a 
reasonable  figure  to  sell  clothes  at  a  fair  price. 

Comparative  Production  Figures 

These  are  not  easy  to  obtain,  for  obvious  reasons,  but  the 
instances  cited  are  sufficiently  numerous  to  demonstrate  beyond 
any  reasonable  doubt  the  superiority  of  open  shop  operation. 

During  the  war  the  Construction  Division  of  the  United 
States  Army  was  employing  members  of  the  Philadelphia  Brick- 
layers' Union.  They  received  eighty-seven  and  one-half  cents 
per  hour;  they  demanded  $1.25  an  hour,  contrary  to  the  Govern- 
ment's agreement  with  the  union,  threatening  to  strike  if  the 
demand  was  not  granted.  The  demand  was  refused  and  they 
were  told  to  leave.  The  army  officials  then  heard  of  a  Quaker 
community  near  Harrisburg,  where  there  was  said  to  be  a  group 
of  bricklayers  under  the  leadership  of  a  Quaker  elder.  After 
four  days'  search  the  community  was  found  and  the  bricklayers 
brought  to  Philadelphia.  The  union  men  averaged  600  bricks  a 
day  each;  the  Quaker  bricklayers,  on  the  same  kind  of  work,  laid 
1,200  bricks  a  day.  Yet  the  unions  claim  to  have  all  the  efficient 
workmen,  and  that  they  do  not  restrict  the  amount  of  work  a  man 
may  do. 

(Statement  of  the  Franklin  Printing  Trades  Association, 
September  I,  1914,  to  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission.  Page 
5301,  of  the  record.) 

At  this  date  there  are  employed  in  the  pressooms  of  the  Franklin 
Printing  Trades  Association  about  280  people,  thirty  of  whom  are  mem- 
bers of  the  pressmen's  and  assistants'  unions. 

The  efficiency  of  these  pressrooms  under  present  conditions  rank 
higher  in  most  instances  than  it  did  under  union  conditions.  In  some 
cases  the  hour  cost  has  been  reduced  from  25  per  cent  to  40  per  cent, 
although  wages  have  not  been  reduced  in  any  case. 

This  is  accounted  for  by  several  factors: 

Limitation  of  output,  so  prevalent  under  union  conditions,  is  prac- 
tically unknown  at  this  time. 

Unfair  and  unreasonable  shop  rules,  all  tending  to  reduce  output  or 
to  cause  the  employment  of  unnecessary  help  have  been  eliminated. 

The   hiring   and   discharging   of   pressroom    help   is    now   vested    in 


124  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

the  proprietor.  Under  union  conditions  any  workman  who  applied  for 
a  position  to  the  proprietor  rather  than  to  the  foreman  was  disciplined 
by  the  union.  This  disciplining  was  done  under  section  n,  article  13, 
of  the  Constitution,  By-Laws,  and  Rules  of  Order  of  San  Francisco 
Printing  Pressmen's  Union,  No.  24,  1907,  which  reads  as  follows : 

"Sec.  ii.  The  foreman  of  the  pressroom  is  the  proper  person  to 
whom  applications  should  be  made  for  a  situation,  and  any  member 
who  shall  seek  employment  either  in  person  or  by  letter,  or  through  sup- 
ply houses,  from  any  proprietor  who  has  a  union  foreman  in  his  press- 
room, shall  be  fined  ten  dollars  on  first  offense  and  shall  be  expelled  on 
second  offense." 

None  but  union  foremen  could  be  employed. 

This  custom  or  rule  enabled  the  union  to  say  absolutely  who  should 
or  should  not  work  in  the  pressroom  of  any  plant;  it  likewise  enabled 
the  union  officials  to  discipline  any  firm  against  whom  they  had  a  grievance, 
apparent  or  real,  by  sending  to  such  firm  only  inefficient  help. 

In  most  plants  the  greater  interest  taken  by  the  employes  in  their 
work  and  their  greater  desire  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  proprietor 
are  very  manifest. 

Output  Comparisons 

(From  a  statement  to  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission 
by  the  manager  of  the  Los  Angeles  Times,  operating  chiefly  with 
independent  workers.  On  page  5888  of  the  record.) 

On  the  stand,  when  delivering  that  part  of  my  statement  which 
relates  to  linotype  machine  work,  that  is  to  say,  composition  by  the  piece 
and  by  the  hours,  respectively — I  boldly  made  the  claim  that  the  former 
system  possesses  distinct  advantages  both  for  the  workmen  and  for  the 
office.  I  declared  that  piece  operators,  working  in  rivalry  with  time  opera- 
tors— the  one  class  in  the  non-union  Times  office  and  the  other  class  in  a 
leading  "closed  shop"  union  office  in  California — when  working  under 
the  like  conditions  in  other  respects,  the  results  demonstrate  conclu- 
sively that  the  Times  operators  are  able  to  show,  and  do  show,  distinct 
gains  over  the  other  class  in  the  vital  matter  of  production  and  earnings. 
I  declared  that  our  linotype  piece  operators  averaged  from  $5.50  to  $7.50 
per  night  of  seven  hours,  as  against  the  union  time  scale  and  rate  of 
$5.50  for  eight  hours.  Now,  to  prove  my  claim  I  offer  a  comparison  of 
figures  covering  actual  results  under  both  systems. 

Comparison  and  results. — Here  is  a  comparison  of  composition-room 
costs  in  the  two  newspaper  offices  referred  to,  operating  under  the  two 
different  systems  named,  the  comparisons  being  for  the  week  ended  August 
30,  1914.  The  totals  show  these  striking  results: 

Los  Angeles  Times  (non-union)  :  Number  of  columns  of  matter  set, 
1,820;  number  of  workmen  engaged,  62;  total  labor  cost,  $2,281.65  (J7 
men  working  on  the  regular  seven-hour  basis  and  45  men  on  an  eight-hour 
basis);  average  labor  cost  per  column,  $1.25;  average  earnings  per  man, 
$36.80  for  the  entire  week.  Now  for  the  contrast: 

Another  California  newspaper  ("closed  shop")  :  Number  of  columns 
of  matter  set,  1,473;  number  of  workmen,  68;  the  total  labor  cost,  $2,363.25 


OPEN  SHOP  EFFICIENCY  AND  PRODUCTION  COMPARISONS  125 

(all  the  men  working  on  an  eight-hour  basis)  ;  average  labor  cost  per 
column,  $1.60;  average  earnings  per  man,  $34.75  for  the  entire  week. 
This  is  a  contrast  and  a  demonstration  that  can  not  be  successfully 
challenged,  nor  can  the  facts  be  gainsaid.  They  prove  our  contention 
that  the  piece-rate  basis  for  linotype  machine  work  results  in  a  larger 
production  with  a  less  number  of  men  and  machines  and  in  higher 
wages  per  man,  coupled  with  lower  cost  to  the  office  and  greater  efficiency. 

(From  a  letter  of  Mr.  T.  E.  Donnelley,  president  of  R.  R. 
Donnelley  &  Sons  Co.,  with  printing  establishments  in  Chicago 
and  Indianapolis,  to  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission,  October 
20,  1914.  On  page  3457  of  the  record.) 

Concerning  the  comparative  costs  of  product  under  union  and  non- 
union conditions,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  compare  present  costs  when 
we  are  running  closed  shop,  as  our  cost  systems  are  entirely  different 
and  the  wage  scale  has  been  materially  increased  during  the  last  few 
years.  In  comparing  our  plant  in  Chicago,  which  we  run  under  open 
shop,  and  our  plant  in  Indianapolis,  which  is  run  under  union  conditions, 
the  costs  on  one.  item  of  composition  vary  as  to  3,850  to  4,050  in  favor 
of  the  Chicago  house. 

Also,  in  regard  to  hand  folding,  the  efficiency  per 'hour  in  Chicago 
is  about  25  per  cent  higher  than  in  the  Indianapolis  plant. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  J.  Bruce  Gibson,  then  president 
of  the  Federation  of  Employers'  Associations  of  the  Pacific 
Coast,  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission,  August  13, 
1914. 

The  restriction  of  output  is  one  of  the  bad  features  of  union  organ- 
ization, and  is  illustrated  in  manufacturing  costs.  I  have  here  a  copy 
of  some  items  in  our  plant,  showing  the  difference  in  cost  of  operation 
during  the  closed  shop  seven  years  ago,  or  eight  years  ago,  when  we 
had  a  union  foundry  and  an  open  shop  as  at  present.  This  is  on  standard 
machinery  of  which  we  have  a  number  of  recurrences,  and  also  as  taken 
from  our  records. 

Shingle  machine,  26-inch  saw  collars,  6  as  union;  as  open  shop,  12. 
I  will  say  to  illustrate  this  that  when  the  molder  was  on  this  work  and 
tried  to  make  7,  the  steward  in  the  shop  stopped  him.  Shingle  mill  gears 
4  to  10;  friction  pulleys,  3  to  6;  main  frames,  i  to  2;  track,  i  as  union 
shop  and  2  and  some  small  work  as  open  shop;  pulleys,  24  x  12,  i  to  2, 
and  some  small  work  as,  open  shop;  pulleys,  24  x  12,  i  to  2  and  some 
small  work. 

In  making  pulleys,  we  make  them  as  the  orders  come  in.  During 
closed  shop,  one  man  and  a  helper  set  up  36  by  10  and  24  by  10— that 
is,  as  closed  shop.  As  open  shop,  the  same  men,  or  the  same  class  of  labor 
set  up  24  x  10,  two  1 8  by  11,  and  two  16  x  n,  a  total  of  9  pulleys  with 
practically  the  same  labor,  as  against  two  under  the  closed  shop. 

Spur-iron  frictions,  36  x  6,  one  under  closed  shop,  and  three  under 
open  shop. 

Those  are  the  records  as  we  have  them  in  our  works. 


126  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Testimony  Before  War  Labor  Board 

(The  following  facts  concerning  comparative  efficiency  in 
open  and  closed  shop  plants  were  brought  out  in  a  hearing  before 
the  National  War  Labor  Board,  just  following  the  signing  of  the 
Armistice  in  1918,  in  the  case  of  International  Molders'  Union, 
Local  No.  n,  vs.  Rochester  Founders,  Inc.  The  testimony  was 
not  disputed.  Mr.  Keough  and  Mr.  Drew  were  the  attorneys 
for  the  union  and  founders,  respectively.) 

In  questioning  Mr.  Willsea  regarding  the  greater  output  of 
the  Railway  Signal  Company,  an  open  shop,  than  that  of  the 
Northwest  Foundry,  a  closed  shop,  the  following  occurred: 

MR.  KEOUGH  :  Q.  Then  why  don't  the  manager  of  the  Northwest 
get  the  same  amount  of  work  per  man  as  the  manager  in  the  Signal? 

A.     I  could  tell  you  very  readily. 

MR.  DREW:     Tell  him..     He  asked  you  the  question. 

MR.  KEOUGH  :     Q.    I  ask  you  to  tell  me. 

A.     He  has  nobody  to  tell  him  how  much  work  he  can  do.    *    *    * 

MR.  KEOUGH  :      That    is    all.      I    am  .  through. 

MR.  DREW  :  Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  saying  that  nobody  tells  him 
how  much  work'he  can  do? 

A.    They  have  no  shop  committee  to  tell  him  how  much  he  can  do. 

Q.    You  mean  a  union  shop  committee? 

A.    Yes.     (R.  143.) 

Mr.  Keough,  in  cross-examining  the  employers'  witness,  Mr. 
McHenry,  a  superintendent  at  the  Gleason  Works,  endeavored 
to  show  that  poor  rigging  and  lack  of  equipment  was  responsible 
for  the  comparative  low  output.  The  witness  is  a  member  of  the 
union.  The  following  occurred: 

Q.  And  you  feel  if  the  rigging  is  given  you,  and  the  flasks  and 
equipment,  that  you  can  turn  out  as  much  work  as  the  ordinary  foundry 
foreman  ? 

A.  We  have  as  good  rigging  in  our  shop  as  any  other,  but  we  don't 
get  one-third  of  the  work. 

Q.  I  want  to  bring  out  the  point  here  if  I  can  that  you  are  a  com- 
petent foreman. 

MR.  DREW:     Well,  we  concede  that. 

MR.  KEOUGH  :  Q.  And  that,  as  such,  if  you  are  given  the  same 
facilities  for  turning  out  the  work,  that  you  can  do  as  well  as  an  average 
foreman. 

A.  I  answered  that.  We  have  the  records  in  our  shop  that  we  have 
not  turned  out  as  much. 

MR.  DREW  :  Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  lack  of  equipment  is  the  reason  for 
the  failure  of  the  Gleason  Company  to  turn  out  as  much  as  the  Elyria 
Foundry  ? 

A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    What  is  the  reason? 


OPEN  SHOP  EFFICIENCY  AND  PRODUCTION  COMPARISONS  127 

A.  The  men  are  restrained.  They  are  told  "This  is  a  day's  work." 
(R.  207,  208.) 

The  following  comparisons  in  output  efficiency  between  the 
Elyria  Foundry  Company  of  Elyria,  Ohio,  an  open  shop  con- 
cern, and  the  closed  shop  establishments  in  Rochester,  were 
submitted.  They  are  typical  of  many  similar  comparisons  pre- 
sented. 

(a)  Pattern— Head    Block    (R.    125,    174).     Rochester:    3   molders 
produced  6  pieces  in  i  day. 

Elyria :     I  molder  and  I  helper  produced  7  pieces  in  I  day. 

(b)  Pattern — Face  Plate  (R.  126).    Rochester:     i  molder  produced 
i  in  2  days. 

Elyria :    i  molder  produced  i  in  i  day. 

(c)  Pattern— Tooth  Rounder  Base   (R.  126,  127,  200).     Rochester: 
i  molder  and  i  helper  produced  i  in  2  days. 

Elyria:     I  molder  and  i   helper  produced   i  in  i   day. 

(d)  Pattern — Carriage  (R.  128).    Rochester,  2  molders  and  i  helper 
produced  i  in  i  day. 

Elyria :    i  molder  produced  i  in  i  day. 

(e)  Pattern — Carriage  No.  A-3027  (R.  128).    Rochester:     i  molder 
produced  2  in  i  day. 

Elyria  i  molder  produced  3  in  i  day. 

(f)  Pattern — Carriage  No.   8-128   (R.   129).     Rochester:    i   molder 
produced  2  in  i  day. 

Elyria:     i  molder  produced  3  in  i  day. 

(g)  Pattern-^Carriage  No.  8-129   (R.  129).     Rochester:     i  molder 
produced  2  in  i  day. 

Elyria:     i  molder  produced  3  in  i   day. 

Comparison  was  made  as  follows,  between  the  Willsea 
Works,  one  of  the  closed-shop  employers,  and  American  Wood- 
working Machinery  Co.  of  Rochester  and  Swett  Iron  Works  of 
Medina,  N.  Y.,  both  open  shops. 

Pattern— C.  and  B.  No.  6001    (R.  120,  136). 

The  Willsea  Works:  i  molder  produced  i  piece  in  5  hours;  labor 
cost,  $2.92; 

American  Woodworking  Machinery  Co. :  produced  same  piece  on  piece 
work  at  cost  of  seventy-five  cents  each; 

Swett  Iron  Works :  r  molder  produced  4  larger  pieces  of  same  type 
in  i  day. 

Low  Production  Costs  in  Open  Shops 

(From  the  Los  Angeles  Sunday  Times,  January  23,  1921. 
Why  industries  go  to  Los  Angeles  on  account  of  open  shop  condi- 
tions and  lower  production  costs.) 

The  change  of  Pacific  Coast  headquarters  from  San  Francisco  to  Los 
Angeles  on  the  part  of  the  Austin  Company,  one  of  the  largest  building 


128  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

and  construction  concerns  in  the  United  States,  is  one  more  of  the  accum- 
ulating evidences  that  the  Coast  supremacy  of  this  city  is  based  on  sound 
consideration.  Enterprise  has  added  the  economic  stability  to  the  natural 
resources  and  climatic  attractions. 

The  Austin  Company,  with  general  offices  at  Cleveland,  is  one  of  the 
country's  leading  and  best-known  construction  organizations,  specializing 
on  and  confining  its  field  to  the  erection  of  large  factory  buildings.  This 
specialization  has  enabled  the  Austin  Company  to  develop  a  standardized 
system  of  factory  construction,  which  has  become  popular  under  the  name 
of  "Austin  Standard  Industrial  Buildings." 

Superior  local  conditions  largely  influenced  the  determination  of  the 
company  to  make  Los  Angeles  its  Pacific  Coast  base,  as  related  to  a  rep- 
resentative of  The  Times  by  John  Harnish,  Pacific  Coast  manager. 

"The  Austin  Company,  working  under  conditions  of  Los  Angeles  cli- 
mate, Los  Angeles  free  labor  through  the  open  shop,  Los  Angeles  building 
laws  antiquated  and  unsuited  to  the  demands  of  so  great  a  city  as  some 
declare,  but  administered  and  enforced  without  interference  of  walking 
delegates  and  business  agents  of  restrictive  unions;  working  under  these 
conditions  and  the  accessibility  of  material  either  by  local  production  or 
adequate  transportation,  the  plant  of  the  Rich  Steel  Products  Company 
was  completed  and  ready  for  occupancy  in  seventy-five  days  from  the 
time  it  was  begun. 

"Contrasted  with  this  record  is  another  factory  building  contracted 
by  the  same  Austin  Company  for  another  industry,  for  erection  in  the  Bay 
district  and  begun  before  the  work  on  the  Rich  plant  was  started  and  not 
as  large  nor  as  difficult  as  the  Rich  plant.  Working  under  Bay  district 
conditions  of  closed  shop,  obstructive  labor  unions  and  collusive  officials, 
some  of  whom  are  now  under  indictment;  Bay  district*  conditions  or  ob- 
structive pooling  among  the  construction  contractors  with  'rings'  of  inter- 
ference with  individual  rights,  this  contract  has  just  been  completed  after 
working  on  it  a  full  year,  whereas,  there  was  no  natural  reason  why  it 
should  not  have  been  finished  in  less  time  than  the  Rich  plant." 

Open  and  Closed  Shop  in  the  Building  Trades 

(Results  of  inquiry  made  by  the  Open  Shop  Department. 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers.) 

The  aim  of  this  inquiry  is  to  determine  the  relative  benefits 
to  employers  in  the  building  trades  of  the  plans  of  industrial 
operation  termed  "Open"  and  "Closed"  Shop.  The  meaning  of 
these  terms  is  too  well  known  to  need  explaining. 

With  the  exception  of  the  printing  trades  no  industry  is  more 
dominated  by  the  closed  shop  idea  and  practice.  Nevertheless, 
within  the  past  year  there  have  been  many  communities,  which 
have  broken  away  from  union  domination  in  the  building  trades. 

This  move  has  been  caused  by  ( I )  A  general  feeling  among 
employers  that  it  was  time  to  call  a  halt  to  the  restriction  of  pro- 
duction, restrictive  rules,  and  jurisdictional  disputes  which  charac- 


OPEN  SHOP  EFFICIENCY  AND  PRODUCTION  COMPARISONS  129 

terized  union  domination.  (2)  A  realization  that  public  sentiment 
would  support  them.  (3)  And  by  a  knowledge  of  the  existence 
of  such  facts,  as  have  been  disclosed  by  the  Lockwood  committee. 
List  (probably  not  complete)  of  towns  in  which  open  shop 
building  conditions  generally  prevail.  Detroit,  Toledo,  Little 
Rock,  Dallas,  Buffalo,  Indianapolis,  Butte,  Atlanta,  Twin  Falls, 
Salt  Lake,  Florence,  Omaha,  Seattle,  Miami,  Minneapolis. 

Comparative  Efficiency 

The  following  statements  indicate  in  nearly  all  cases  an  im- 
provement in  efficiency   following  open  shop   operation.     They 
will,  it  is  believed,  be  found  of  great  interest. 
DETROIT 

Chester  M.  Culver,  Manager  of  Detroit  Employers'  Association: 
"Even  the  building  trades  are  generally  open  shop.  *  *  * 
"The   workman    is    permitted    to    earn    according   to    his    productive 
capacity.     Detroit  has  established  productive  records  in  many  lines." 
BUTTE 

Master  Builders'  Division,  Associated  Industries  of  Butte: 
"The  year  1920  witnessed  building  under  open  shop  conditions." 
The  Manager  of  the  Associated  Industries  of  Montana  writes: 
"All  construction  work  in  Butte  since  January,  1920,  has  been  under 
the  Anierican  Plan.    However,  we  did  not  obtain  statistics  as  to  relative 
efficiency~bT^workers  since  January  i.     The  main  advantage  to  us  has 
been  the  doing  away  of  some  objectional  working  rules  of  the  unions." 
SEATTLE 

The  Associated  Industries  of  Seattle,  says: 

"The  loss  of  the  building  trades  and  other  strikes  broke  the  influence 
of  the  radicals. 

"Seattle  workers  are  sticking  to  their  jobs,  and  general  efficiency  has 
shown  an  increase  rather  than  a  decrease.    Union  men  are  working  along- 
side non-union  men  in  a  number  of   Seattle  industries  which  were  one 
hundred  per  cent  union  three  months  ago." 
DALLAS 

Dallas  Chamber  of  Commerce.    Open  Shop  Square  Deal  Association: 
"Increased  efficiency  keeps  wages  up.   Building  permits  have  increased 
40  per  cent  over  the  same  period  last  year.    There  have  -been  no  strikes  in 
the  building  industry  for  one  year,  something  unheard  of  before  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  open  shop  association. 

"In  August  of  a  total  of  210  building  permits  $409,050  was  to  be 
under  the  open  shop  and  $207,400  under  the  closed  shop." 

The  Southwestern  Open  Shop  Association,  with  headquarters  in  Dallas, 
says: 

"We  have  demonstrated  beyond  question  that  construction  on  an  open 
shop  basis  is  efficient  and  less  costly  than  when  conducted  as  under  closed 
shop  contracts." 
ATLANTA 

Employers'  Association  of  Atlanta: 


130  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

"Ninety  per  cent  of  $3,500,000  worth  of  present  building  construction 
is  on  the  open  shop  basis.  The  largest  contracting  firm  here  reported 
after  one  month  of  the  open  shop  25  per  cent  increase  in  production  and 
increase  in  wages." 

LITTLE  ROCK 

We  read  in  the  October  18  bulletin  of  the  American  Open  Shop  Asso- 
ciation of  Quincy,  Illinois : 

"The  building  trades  council  of  Little  Rock  has  gone  out  of  existence, 
disbanded,  given  up  the  ghost  and  the  business  agent,  Robert  Pettifor  .has 
departed  for  other  fields  where  the  people  are  still  not  'hep'  to  'business 
agents/  Less  than  one  year  of  open  shop  in  Little  Rock  and  the  strongest 
union  combination  in  that  city,  including  the  painters,  plasterers,  carpen- 
ters, bricklayers,  electricians  and  all  allied  crafts,  now  recognize  the  open 
shop  and  work  side  by  side  with  non-union  men.  Incidentally,  production 
per  man  has  increased,  and  Little  Rock  is  putting  on  a  building  campaign 
as  a  result." 

Says  The  New  Sky  Line,  published  by  the  Open  Shop  Bureau  of  the 
Little  Rock  Board  of  Commerce,  in  its  issue  of  October  23: 

"The  union  shops  in  the  building  trades  brought  about  their  own 
destruction.  They  made  themselves  unbearable,  and  the  business  public 
upon  whom  they  were  dependent  organized  the  open  shop  campaign  and 
said  they  would  have  no  more  of  them.  That  was  the  beginning  of  the 
end." 

Undef  date  of  December  16,  1920,  the  Open  Shop  Bureau  of  the  Little 
Rock  Board  of  Commerce  informs  us : 

"We  have  just  completed  a  partial  survey  of  the  building  conditions 
in  the  City  of  Little  Rock,  taken  from  reports  of  six  of  our  leading  con- 
tractors who  state  that  the  efficiency  and  output  under  the  open  shop  plan 
has  increased  approximately  twenty-five  per  cent. 

"These  reports  were  compiled  from  actual  figures  taken  from  the 
books  of  the  contractors  making  reports." 

TWIN  FALLS 

Twin  Falls,  Idaho,  building  since  the  first  of  1920  has  been  open  shop. 
During  the  first  six  months  of  1919  (closed  shop),  there  were  99  permits, 
representing,  structural  cost  of  $446,950;  during  the  same  period  for  1920 
there  were  258  permits  representing  $799,840  structural  cost.  The  head 
of  the  open  shop  movement  in  Idaho,  informs  us  that  there  is  in  his 
opinion  an  average  increase  of  30  per  cent,  in  the  efficiency  of  workers,  a 
very  large  part  of  which,  but  not  all  of  it,  can  be  attributed  to  the 
inauguration  of  the  open  shop. 

SALT  LAKE 

The  Manager  of  the  Utah  Associated  Industries  writes,  concerning  the 
effects  of  the  controversy  as  a  result  of  which  open  shop  building  condi- 
tions now  prevail  throughout  the  state  as  follows : 

"It  is  the  consensus  of  opinion  among  the  contractors,  that  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  employes  is  on  the  increase."  He  also  refers  to  "the  added 
efficiency  of  employes  under  the  American  Plan." 


OPEN  SHOP  EFFICIENCY  AND  PRODUCTION  COMPARISONS  131 

NORFOLK 

The  Builders  and  Contractors  Association  of  Norfolk,  Virginia,  writes : 
"About  80  per  cent  of  the  work  in  Norfolk  in  the  building  industry  is 

operated  under  the  open  shop.    We  have  had  practically  no  labor  troubles 

since  our  declaration  for  the  open  shop,  and  the  majority  of  our  members 

have  expressed  entire  satisfaction  with  same." 

FLORENCE 

The  Contractors  of  Florence,  Alabama,  say  that  since  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Open  Shop  they  have  more  and  better  workmen  than  ever 
before. 
OMAHA 

We  understand  that  building  in  Omaha  is  mostly  "Open  Shop,"  we 
hope   soon   to    have   authoritative   information   as   to    Omaha   conditions 
which  we  can  give  those  interested. 
BUFFALO 

The  Builders'  Association   Exchange  of  Buffalo,  according  to  their 
August  bulletin,  voted  108  to  I  in  favor  of  the  open  shop  in  the  building 
industry.     The  bulletin  says  the  Exchange  "has  always  been  consistently 
open  shop  in  its  policy  under  the  only  fair  definitions  of  the  term." 
MINNEAPOLIS 

We  recently  wrote  the  Citizen's  Alliance  of  Minneapolis,  as  to  effi- 
ciency under  the  open  shop.  Their  reply  of  December  4th,  1920,  reads: 

\As  to  increased  efficiency?  I  wish  to  say  that  practically  every  manu- 
facturer and  every  contractor  reports  an  increase  in  efficiency  within  the 
last  sixty  days.  I  think,  perhaps  this  is  due  to  a  certain  extent,  to  the  fact 
that  there  are  five  or  six  men  for  every  job.  However,  I  want  to  say 
that  contractors  now  operating  on  the  open  shop  basis  claim  that  their 
production  costs  are  much  lower,  due  to  increased  efficiency/^} 
CHATTANOOGA 

The  Associated  General  Contractors  of  Chattanooga,  Tennessee,  in 
June,  1920,  refused  to  grant  a  25  per  cent  advance  in  wages,  and  after 
a  strike  of  nearly  three  months  the  men  returned  to  work  without  any 
advance.  The  organization  says: 

"The  Associated  General  Contractors  of  Chattanooga  stand  for  the 
open  shop  and  refuse  flatly  to  deal  with  union  labor  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  principle  involved  in  the  open  shop." 
RESULTS  OF  THE  CLOSED  SHOP 

A  special  committee  of  the  Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce  reported 
that  "the  existence  of  the  closed  union  shop  throughout  the  local  building 
industry  is  the  prime  cause  of  the  following  conditions,  which  your  com- 
mittee considers  detrimental  to  the  public  interest  as  well  as  to  the  indus- 
try itself. 

Among  other  things  the  report  says:  "Underproduction  by  Cleve- 
land's building  labor  is  a  well  defined  fact.  Your  committee  believes  it 
may  be  fairly  stated  that,  compared  with  1914  the  average  building  crafts- 
man in  the  summer  of  1920  produced  two-thirds  as  much  work,  and  re- 
ceived twice  as  much  pay.  Based  on  this  estimate,  union  building  labor 
costs  increased  200  per  cent  in  this  interval."  They  enumerate  the  causes 
of  the  decreased  production,  nearly  all  of  which  was  held  attributable  to 
restrictive  union  practices. 


132  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Strikes — General 

For  purposes  of  reference  this  chapter  contains  certain 
information  and  facts  in  regard  to  strikes.  Strikes  cause  great 
delay  in  industry ;  harmony  and  peace  are  promoted  by  open  shop 
conditions.  In  order  to  properly  appreciate  the  benefits  of  indus- 
trial harmony  promoted  by  the  open  shop  we  must  clearly  realize 
the  conditions  from  which  it  will  free  us. 

The  following  chapter  is  devoted  to  two  particular  forms  of 
industrial  disputes  which  occur  almost  solely  in  closed  shop  plants. 

A  "strike"  involves  the  following  elements :  ( I )  the  quitting 
of  work  by  a  group;  (2)  it  is  concerted;  (3)  its  purpose  is  to  (a) 
secure  terms  they  demand;  (b)  resist  terms  proposed  by  the 
employer,  or  (c),  to  enable  other  workers  to  win  a  dispute. 

Facts  About  American  Strikes 

According  to  the  "Statistical  Abstract"  ofBcial  governmental 
figures  for  1881 — 1905  show  that  American  strikes  have  been 
caused  as  follows.  The  figures  are  the  percentage  of  the  total 
number  of  strikes  (certain  combinations  have  been  made  by  the 
writer).  The  second  column  gives  these  figures  for  1915-16. 
Figures  for  1919  are  given  in  the  third  column. 

Wages   51.78  52.40  44.70 

Hours    5.43  7.48  12.80 

Recognition  of  union  and  union  rules 18.84  12.50  21.18 

Concerning  employment  of  certain  persons 

( for   closed   shop) 7.33  6.85  5.10 

Sympathetic    3.66  i.oo  3.27 

Working    conditions     2.51  4.75  4.50 

Miscellaneous    11.45  *5-02  8.45 


100.00  100.00  100.00 


In  the  1919  figures  554  strikes  for  increase  in  wages  and 
decrease  in  hours  have  been  divided  equally  between  the  first 
two  classes. 

These  figures  included  both  small  and  large  strikes.  From 
1 88 1  to  1905  an  average  of  183  men  were  involved  in  each  strike. 
Sixty-eight  and  ninety-nine  hundredths  per  cent,  of  the  strikes 
from  1 88 1  to  1905  were  ordered  by  labor  organizations.  From 
1001  to  1905  about  77  per  cent,  of  the  strikes  were  so  ordered. 
In  1918  of  the  recorded  strikes  83  per  cent,  were  called  by  unions. 

During  1919  there  were  3,253  strikes  in  the  United  States. 
Three  million  nine  hundred  and  five  thousand  four  hundred  and 
twenty-three  workers  were  involved.  An  analysis  of  1,702 


STRIKES— GENERAL  133 

strikes  revealed  an  average  duration  of  thirty-four  days.  Assum- 
ing that  the  same  average  held  for  the  remainder  the  total  num- 
ber of  days  lost  was  110,602. 

But  as  each  of  the  3,905,423  workers  average  a  loss  of 
thirty-four  days  the  total  of  working  days  lost  was  132,784,382. 

The  cost  to  employes  of  the  1919  strikes  was  over  $800,- 
000,000;  the  loss  to  employers  is  estimated  at  $1,300,000,000. 

The  Money  Cost  of  Strikes 

To  the  American  Magazine  for  February,  1920,  Mr.  Roger 
W.  Babson,  a  widely  known  statistician,  contributed  an  article 
entitled  "What  These  Strikes  Cost  You  In  Money."  He  analyzed 
the  strikes  occurring  in  the  twelve  months  following  the  Armistice. 
He  kept  his  estimates  down,  so  as  to  be  well  within  the  truth. 

These  two  strikes  alone  meant  8,602,000  additional  days  of  idleness 
in  August  and  September,  1919,  making  a  total,  for  the  two  months,  of 
11,792,000  regular  working  days  lost 

According  to  my  estimate,  this  idleness  caused  a  loss  to  the  workers 
of  $41,727,000  in  wages;  and  to  the  employers  a  loss  of  $4,127,000  in 
profits.  At  that  rate,  the  year's  loss  to  the  strikers  would  be  about  a 
quarter  of  a  billion  dollars  in  wages.  The  loss  to  the  employers  would 
be  about  a  tenth  as  much. 

In  summarizing  Mr.  Babson's  article,  the  Business  Digest  of 
March  9,  1920,  said: 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  story  of  direct  loss  from  strikes.  No  strike 
can  take  place  in  modern  industry  without  causing  innumerable  and 
widening  circles  of  loss.  In  August  and  September,  1919,  Babson's  had 
records  of  strikes  involving  ninety  different  trades,  among  them  the 
following,  enough  to  show  that  practically  every  aspect  of  our  daily  lives 
was  directly  affected. 

Shoes,  raincoats,  typewriters,  cigars,  fish,  canning,  furniture,  gar- 
ments, hats,  hosiery,  jewelry,  wire,  coal  mining,  street  car  lines,  laundries, 
metals,  shipbuilding,  lumber,  paper,  rubber,  printing,  foods,  railroads, 
express,  building  trades,  and  so  on. 

Not  only  did  the  strikers  lose  their  wages  and  the  employers  their 
profits,  but  the  country  did  not  get  the  goods  that  should  have  been 
produced. 

Mr.  Babson's  analysis  shows  the  amount  of  production  lost 
to  be  as  follows: 

i>75l,74O  tons  bituminous. 
1,048,740  tons  arthracite. 
616,300  tons  undelivered. 
88,000  machine-made  women's  hats. 
1,768,800  pairs  men's  shoes. 
15,886,500  men's  shirts. 
19,183,800  pairs  overalls. 
8,294,000  board   feet. 


134  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

The  Business  Digest  comments: 

This  decrease  in  production  affects  you  in  two  ways :  You  have  less 
and  you  pay  more  for  what  you  do  have.  But  for  the  strikes  there  would 
have  been  about  2,000,000  more  pairs  of  men's  shoes — an  item  not  to  be 
lightly  regarded. 

Moreover,  there  were  threatened  strikes  and  partial  cessations  of 
work  which,  while  they  did  not  reach  the  walkout  stage,  yet  materially 
reduced  output. 

All  these  direct  losses,  however,  form  only  the  smallest  of  the  circles 
which  widen  around  a  strike.  Here  is  another:  If  a  strike  takes  place 
in  one  industry,  it  reacts  on  every  industry  that  contributes  in  any  way 
to  it. 

The  Reaction  Caused  by  Strikes 
Mr.  Babson  said: 

For  instance,  a  strike  in  the  garment  trade  reacts  on  the  textile 
mills — the  makers  of  silks,  velvets,  woolens,  cotton  fabrics  may  be  forced 
to  quit  work. 

For  every  day  of  idleness  caused  in  a  plant  that  is  on  strike,  there 
is  another  day  of  idleness  caused  by  the  resulting  loss  of  work  to  other 
men  and  women  who  would  normally  be  busy  making  materials  to  be 
used  in  that  plant.  And  their  loss  is  not  made  up,  even  though  th« 
strikers  .win. 

And  a  strike  involves  not  only  the  direct  producers  of  these  materials 
but  every  person  concerned  in  selling  them  and  in  transporting  them 
The  loss  is  felt  at  every  step. 

The  cost  of  a  serious  coal  strike  is  almost  beyond  computation 
Practically  every  industry  in  the  country  pays  part  of  the  price.  I: 
plants  are  shut  down  for  lack  of  fuel,  every  worker  in  those  plants  car 
charge  the  coal  strike  with  so  many  days'  wages,  his  wages.  It  has  cos 
him  a  new  pair  of  shoes,  or  a  new  suit,  or  a  sack  of  flour,  in  additior 
to  making  his  own  winter  supply  of  coal  scantier  and  more  expensive. 

You  may  think  that  a  street-car  strike  would  not  have  their  par 
ticular  reaction,  but  just  think  it  over.  Take  a  subway  strike  in  Nev 
York  City,  for  instance:  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  workers  are  unabl* 
to  reach  their  shops,  or  stores,  or  offices.  They  may  lose  only  an  hou 
or  two,  or  they  may  lose  a  whole  day  of  work.  And  lost  work  is  los 
money !  For  work  means  production.  And  reduced  production  inevitabl; 
means  increased  cost  of  living. 

For  example,  here  is  one  of  many  outside  losses  caused  by  the  print 
ing  strike  in  New  York  City:  Some  of  the  shops  closed  had  a  larg 
business  in  printing  catalogs  for  commercial  firms.  It  is  the  custom  o 
these  firms  to  depend  almost  wholly  on  these  catalogs  to  sell  their  goods 

The  whole  manufacturing  program  of  hundreds  of  these  concern 
was  held  up  because  they  could  not  get  out  their  catalogs.  It  is  estimate' 
that  these  firms  employ  over  500,000  people,  and  indirectly  give  work  t 
1,000,000  others.  Thus,  the  strike  of  only  a  few  thousands  men  in  on 
industry  affected  1,500,000  in  other  lines  of  production.  And  retnembe 
that  back  of  this  1,500,000  are  still  more  men  and  women  whose  work  an 
earnings  suffered. 


STRIKES—GENERAL  135 

It  is  these  indirect  losses  which  make  the  cost  of  strikes  so  tre- 
mendous. They  go  out  in  endless  ramifications,  which  finally  reach  into 
the  pockets  of  practically  every  one  of  us.  Everybody  has  some  loss  to 
make  up  because  of  them.  And  when  everybody  starts  to  make  up 
losses,  the  level  of  all  costs  rises. 

Here  is  just  one  curious  instance  of  the  way  strikes  affect  you  in 
ways  you  do  not  suspect:  Because  of  the  tie-up  of  shipping,  the  supply 
of  quinine  ran  short,  and  there  was  great  anxiety  over  this  shortage  in 
case  the  influenza  epidemic  broke  out  again.  Many  other  drugs  were 
scarce  for  the  same  reason,  and  higher  prices  for  them  were  predicted. 
Over  $3,000,000  worth  of  essential  oils  were  held  up,  and  many  of  them 
became  very  scarce. 

Building  materials   were   delayed,    with   the   result   that   contractors 
lost  money,  workmen   were   idle,   and   the   construction   of   new   houses,        ,  j 
stores  and  offices  —  the  only  solution  of  the  high-rent  problem  —  was  held 

back- 


Strikes  are  Destructive 

(An  editorial  in  the  New  York  Mail  of  November  30,  1920. 

The  figures  given   out  by  the   State   Industrial   Commission   on   the 
scope  and  effect  of  strikes   during  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30  last, 
disclose  a  situation  that  is    fairly  incredible.     Here  are   some   of  these  > 
figures,  collected  by  the  Bureau  of  Mediation  and  Arbitration: 

There  were  240  industrial  disputes  last  year,  as  compared  with  168 
in  the  preceding  year. 

In  these  strikes  334,168  persons  were  directly  involved,  as  against 
208,952  in  the  preceding  year,  and  16,403  persons  not  directly  involved  had 
to  quit  work  because  of  the  tying  up  of  the  industrial  machinery. 

The  aggregate  loss  of  working  time  in  these  strikes  was  10,608,483 
days. 

These  strikes,  involving  the  reduction  of  the  producing  power  of  the 
state  by  10,608,483  days  at  a  time  when  increased  production  was  the 
only  answer  to  the  question  that  was  pressing  for  immediate  solution, 
imposed  a  heavy  burden,  not  only  upon  the  workers  who  struck,  not  only 
upon  the  industries  that  had  to  suspend  operations,  but  also  and  emi- 
nently upon  the  vast  body  of  consumers  who  were  not  at  all  interested 
in  the  issues  that  were  being  fought  out  between  employer  and  employe, 
but  were  profoundly  affected  by  the  destructive  results  of  the  struggle. 

It  is  the  great  body  of  consumers  who  paid  the  bulk  of  the  cost  of 
these  240  strikes,  which  caused  the  loss  of  10,608,483  working  days. 

These  figures  stagger  the  imagination  and  impose  a  wrench  upon 
the  power  of  comprehension., 

They  show  in  terms  of  facts  to  what  extent  our  economic  and  social     \ 
system  is  still  dominated  by  the  principle  of  violence  which  society  long 
has  discarded  in  the  relations  between  individuals  and  groups  of  indi- 
viduals. 

We  submit  to  judicial  tribunals  every  form  of  controversy  between  r 
man   and   man.    In  .  the   relations   between    employer   and   employed,   we  / 
still  resort  to  the  weapon  of  the  middle  ages  and  of  trie  barbarous  cen- 
turies behind  them,  when  force  was  the  only  means  of  settling  disputes. 


136  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

We  have  dealt  a  crushing  blow,  by  our  manhood,  our  arms  and  our 
money,  at  the  revolting  conception  embodied  in  the  rule  that  Might  is 
Right.  After  having  won  that  war  against  disorder  in  the  life  of  the 
world  we  still  perpetuate  that  disorder  in  our  industrial  life. 

Is  it  not  time  to  stop,  think  and  act  in  a  determined  endeavor  to  end 
forever  the  industrial  anarchy  that  is  affecting  disastrously  the  life  of 
every  individual? 

Is  it  not  time  for  us  to  relegate  the  archaic,  destructive  and  sin- 
gularly unfair  and  unintelligent  weapon  of  the  strike  to  the  museum  of 
savage  weapons,  condemned  by  the  experience  of  the  race  and  discarded 
by  the  spirit  of  civilization? 

2,000  Strikers  Deprive  50,000  Men  of  Work 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Simon  O'Donnell,  business  agent 
of  the  Chicago  Journeymen  Plumbers'  Union,  and  president  of  the 
Chicago  Building  Trades  Council,  before  the  Industrial  Relations 
Commission,  July  24,  1914.  How  a  strike  of  2,000  men  threw 
50,000  others  out  of  work  for  three  months.) 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Now,  Mr.  O'Donnell,  lately  in  Chicago  there  was  a 
brick  strike — strike  of  the  brickmakers — was  there  not? 

MR.  O'DONNELL:    Yes,  sir. 

MJR.  THOMPSON:    In  which  about  2,700  men  were  out  on  a  strike? 

MR.  O'DONNELL:     I  believe  they  claimed  about  2,000. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  What  effect  did  that  strike  have  on  the  other 
workers  in  the  building  trades  in  Chicago. 

MR.  O'DONNELL:    It  had  an  immediate  effect. 

MR.  THOMPSON:    Did  it  throw  them  out  of  work? 

MR.  O'DONNELL:  Immediately,  I  might  say.  Yes;  that  is,  the  brick- 
layers. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Was  there  a  great  loss  in  wages  to  the  members 
of  the  building  trades  unions  in  Chicago  because  of  that  brick  strike? 

MR.  O'DONNELL:  Oh,  I  believe  there  were  about  50,000  or  6o,ooc 
men  forced  on  the  street  for  about  three  or  four  months. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Well,  their  wages  would  amount  to  several  hundrec 
thousand  dollars  a  day,  would  they  not? 

MR.  O'DONNELL:    I  never  stopped  to  figure  them  up. 

MR.  THOMPSON:    They  would  amount  to  a  great  deal  of  money? 

MR.  O'DONNELL:    Yes. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  What  was  the  settlement  of  that  strike,  if  yot 
know,  in  what  increase  in  wages  did  that  strike  result  to  the  brick 
makers  ? 

MR'.  O'DONNELL:    They  got  a  very  little  increase. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     About  a  cent  an  hour,  wasn't  it? 

MR.  O'DONNELL  :    I  believe  it  was ;  yes. 

Irresponsible  Leaders  Call  Strikes 

(From  opinion  of  Judge  F.  M.  Wright,  November  2ist 
1911,  in  case  of  United  States  vs.  Thomas  Woods,  president  oi 
the  local  boiler  makers'  union  at  East  St.  Louis.  Strikes  callec 


STRIKES— GENERAL  137 

by  irresponsible  leaders.     In  many  unions  the  officers  can  call 
strikes  without  vote  of  the  rank  and  file.) 

"Now,  I  say  to  you  men,  that  there  is  nobody  more  friendly  to  you 
than  the  men  who  are  operating  this  Government  from  top  to  bottom, 
and  when  you  suffer  yourselves  to  be  misled  as  you  are  being  misled 
by  these  outside  agitators,  you  are  simply  surrendering  to  them  the 
rights  you  ought  now  to  be  enjoying.  If  you  would  let  proper  people  be 
your  friends  instead  of  these  men  who  want  to  break  up  the  country,  you 
would  be  better  off,  and  you  can  if  you  want  to.  I  don't  see  what  good 
this  strike  is  doing  you.  We  can  all  appreciate  a  strike  that  is  brought 
about  for  the  purpose  of  good — a  little  more  wages — a  little  more  money. 
But  why  break  down  the  laws  ?  You  don't  appreciate  it,  but  those  that 
see  to  it  understand  that  is  the  object  of  it.  Read  those  publications — 
the  publications  that  are  foisted  upon  you,  and  see  what  they  say  about  it. 

"Now,  I  have  said  this  much  in  a  general  way.  I  probably  have  said 
this  much  before.  I  would  like  to  see  all  these  men  on  strike  get  down 
to  fair,  unbiased,  unprejudiced  consideration  of  this  thing.  Go  back 
to  work.  There  is  no  reason  why  you  are  out.  You  can't  tell  a  private 
corporation  or  any  private  concern  to  surrender  up  their  business  to 
these  outside  people  away  off  from  here.  You  don't  know  them.  Why, 
I  am  informed,  not  by  the  evidence  in  this — that  the  largest  shops  on  this 
railroad,  where  there  are  the  most  men  (I  am  creditably  informed  this 
is  true),  when  this  strike  question  came  up,  voted  unanimously  against 
it.  Now,  think  of  that  for  a  moment.  At  the  Burnside  yards  I  am 
informed  that  there  was  a  unanimous  vote  against  it,  unless  I  am  mis- 
taken about  it,  but  certainly  a  very  large  majority  were  against  it. 
But  what  happened?  Somebody  away  off,  I  don't  know  who,  some 
man  that  your  suffrage  has  elevated  and  that  you  have  submitted  this 
to  in  some  way  or  other  that  you  felt  yourselves  under  obligations  to 
obey — these  outsiders  come  in  here,  control  your  business,  keep  you  out 
of  your  jobs,  keep  you  out  of  your  money.  I  wouldn't  do  it.  I  wouldn't 
submit  to  it.  It  is  the  most  cruel  tyranny  on  earth ;  men  who  voluntarily 
submit  to  these  irresponsible  men  and  carry  out  their  orders  to  its  fullest 
extent.  They  have  some  rules,  I  don't  know  what,  but  some  rules  and 
regulations  that  require  you  to  obey  what  they  say.  You  are  under 
no  legal  obligation  to  obey  any  such  orders.  I  wouldn't  do  it.  Tech- 
nically, this  defendant  is  guilty. 

"Now,  I  will  tell  you  what  I  am  going  to  do  in  this  case.  It  is 
the  last  case  as  far  as  I  know,  of  this  kind  upon  this  docket,  and  I 
hope  it  will  be  the  last,  for  it  is  no  pleasure  to  me  to  be  compelled 
to  pass  upon  these  questions  and  judge  these  men  guilty  of  contempt 
of  court  and  punish  them.  I  am  going  to  do  this :  I  am  going  to  take 
this  case  under  advisement  indefinitely,  convene  it  to  the  adjourned 
session  of  the  September  term  at  Danville,  and  allow  this  man  to  go  as 
it  were,  upon  parole.  I  will  put  him  upon  a  par  with  all  of  these  strikers 
that  are  out  striking.  If  they  behave  I  will  never  punish  this  man;  but 
if  they  don't  and  I  am  compelled  to  pass  upon  these  cases  again,  I  don't 
mow  wnat'l  will  do.  -I  trust  this  is  the  last  one  that  will  ever  come  up/' 


138  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Strikes — Sympathetic  and  Jurisdictional 

Strikes  are  far  more  apt  to  occur,  and  do  occur  more  oftei 
in  closed  shop  establishments  than  in  open  shop  plants.  A: 
pointed  out  in  Chapter  VIII,  many  of  the  "walking  delegates' 
find  it  advantageous  either  to  foment,  or  at  least  not  to  discourage 
strife. 

Then  there  is  the  sympathetic  strike.  The  employer  doe* 
not  consider  it  just,  for  instance,  that  his  employes,  who  an 
well  satisfied  with  their  conditions,  should  have  to  strike  because 
employes  in  some  other  establishment  have  differences  with  theii 
employer.  Why,  to  imagine  a  case,  should  the  Pennsylvania  Rail- 
road be  forced  to  cease  operations  because  the  workers  on  the 
Denver  and  Rio  Grande  Railway  believe  they  are  unjustly  treated' 
Or  take  a  case  which  comes  more  immediately  home,  perhaps 
The  apartment  house  janitors  in  Chicago  went  on  strike  a  feu 
years  ago.  Because  of  "sympathy"  the  milk  wagon  drivers  anc 
grocery  delivery  drivers  refused  to  deliver  goods  themselves  01 
to  allow  others  to  deliver  goods  at  these  apartment  houses.  Wher 
none  but  union  men  may  be  employed  in  a  plant  the  fair  employe! 
may,  through  absolutely  no  fault  of  his  own,  have  his  establish- 
ment shut  down  for  weeks  or  for  months. 

Dr.  Frank  T.  Stockton,  in  his  book  "The  Closed  Shop  ir 
American  Trade  Unions,"  declares  on  page  171 : 

"It  is  equally  undeniable  that  most  unions  which  have  opportunity 
to  enforce  the  extended  or  the  joint  closed  shop  have  not  hesitated  a1 
times  to  strike  even  when  all  their  demands  in  the  particular  shop  have 
been  satisfied.  Moreover,  the  closed  shop  has  involved  employers  in  waste 
ful  jurisdictional  disputes  with  which  they  have  no  real  concern.  Wen 
there  no  closed  shops  such  disputes  would  be  robbed  of  all  their  bitter 
ness." 

(From  testimony,  of  Mr.  Edward  Dunn,  financial  secretary 
of  Bricklayers'  Union  No.  34,  before  the  Industrial  Relations 
Commis'sion,  May  28,  1914.  Mr.  Dunn  shows  the  harm  done  tc 
the  workers  by  sympathetic  strikes.  The  bricklayers  joined  the 
American  Federation  in  1916.) 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Is  your  organization,  the  International  Union,  affili- 
ated with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

MR.  DUNN  :    No,  sir. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Do  you  know  why  it  is  not  affiliated  with  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor? 


STRIKES— SYMPATHETIC  AND  JURISDICTIONAL  139 

MR.  DUNN  :  The  bricklayers  of  the  country  have  taken  a  referendum 
vote,  voted  not  to  affiliate  in  any  way. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Do  you  know  the  principal  reason  or  argument  upon 
which  they  refused  to  affiliate? 

MR.  DUNN:    No,  sir. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     Have  you  any  idea  why  they  do  not  affiliate? 

MR.  DUNN:  I  suppose  they  consider  there  would  be  too  much  .loss 
of  time  to  protect  themselves. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :    In  other  words,  they  feel — 

MR.  DUNN  :  They  would  be  called  upon  by  every  organization  to 
go  on  sympathetic  strikes,  and  they  are  able  to  take  care  of  themselves; 
that  is  my  personal  opinion. 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH  :  Mr.  Dunn,  did  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
your  union  was  not  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

MR.  DUNN:    Yes,  sir. 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH  :  And  your  personal  opinion  of  the  reason  was 
what? 

MR.  DUNN:    Why,  that  we  would  be  on  the  street  most  of  the  time. 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH  :     On  account  of  sympathetic  strikes,  etc.  ? 

MR.  DUNN:    Yes,  sir. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Charles  B.  Torpy,  business  agent 
of  the  Holders'  Union,  Philadelphia,  before  the  Industrial  Rela- 
tions Commission,  June  26,  1914.  Page  2921  of  the  record.  Mr. 
Torpy's  testimony  shows  that  some  employers  feel  forced  to 
discriminate  against  union  men  because  of  the  danger  of  sympa- 
thetic strikes.) 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  Then  those  four  large  concerns  employ 
approximately,  in  normal  times,  1,000  molders? 

MR.  TORPY:     Yes.     Well,  800  anyway. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL  :  And,  as  a  rule  they  do  not  employ  union 
men? 

MR.  TORPY:  No,  sir.  They  don't  employ  union  men  if  they  can 
get  others  to  take  their  places. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:    What  is  the  reason  for  that? 

MR.  TORPY:  Well,  the  reason,  I  guess,  in  the  Baldwin  plant  is  they 
had  a  strike  there  along  in  1910,  and  after  that  strike  they  decided  to 
not  employ  any  more  union  men.  It  was  a  sort  of  a  sympathetic  strike, 
the  molder's  strike  was,  and  ever  since  then  they  have  absolutely  refused 
to  employ  union  men. 

A  Denial  and  Its  Answer 

Writing  in  System  of  April,  1920,  the  President  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  said: 

"A  sympathetic  strike  is  absolutely  against  the  principles  of  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor." 

Yet  what  do  the  acts  of  the  American  Federation  reveal? 
In  1890  (page  42  of  the  official  proceedings)  it  was  declared 


140  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

that  help  should  be  given  sister  unions  in  case  of  sympathetic 
strikes. 

In  1895  (page  82)  it  was  declared  that  trade  unions. should 
not  tie  themselves  up  with  contracts  so  that  they  cannot  help 
each  other  when  able — in  other  words,  no  contract  should  be 
made  preventing  men  from  discontinuing  work  because  of  "sym- 
pathy." 

In  1902  (page  144)  a  similar  resolution  was  passed. 

In  1916  (page  397)  unions  were  advised  to  enter  into  no 
agreements  that  call  for  the  surrender  of  any  right  to  strike  in 
support  of  other  workers. 

Why  should  such  resolutions  be  passed  if  sympathetic 
strikes  are  "against  the  principles  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor?"  Or  is  the  attempt  to  make  the  public  believe  the  A.  F. 
of  L.  opposes  sympathetic  strikes  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
the  public  does  not  approve  such  strikes  ?  Is  the  denial  based  on 
the  true  facts? 

Jurisdictional  Disputes 

Of  similar  nature  is  the  "Jurisdictional"  strike.  As  a  builder, 
say,  you  employ  only  union  men,  under  a  closed  shop  agreement. 
Then  the  plumbers'  union  says  to  the  steamfitters'  union  that  the 
latter  cannot  do  a  certain  kind  of  work.  Or  the  carpenters,  lathers 
and  plasterers  may  have  a  dispute  as  to  which  union  is  entitled, 
according  to  their  own  rules  (they  are  the  "bosses"),  to  perform 
a  certain  job.  The  employer's  judgment  is  not  consulted,  but 
work  is  stopped,  while  the  men  dispute  who  shall  do  the  task. 
Building  operations  have  been  stopped  for  weeks  or  months  in 
New  York,  Chicago,  and  San  Francisco  because  of  such  disputes. 
These  disputes,  bear  in  mind,  are  not  whether  union  men  shall 
do  the  work;  the  dispute  is  as  to  what  union  men  shall  do  it. 
Many  are  settled  locally ;  others  affect  workers  all  over  the  nation. 
In  1908,  nineteen  such  disputes,  involving  at  least  thirty-eight 
different  unions,  came  before  the  annual  convention  of  the' Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  for  settlement.  In  1914,  twenty-two 
Jurisdictional  disputes  came  before  the  annual  convention.  The 
individual  employer  has  signed  a  closed  shop  agreement  and  has 
accepted  all  the  union  rules ;  yet  his  work  may  be  seriously  delayed 
because  of  Jurisdictional  disputes.  Employers  operating  under 
the  Open  Shop  principle  are  bothered  neither  by  the  sympathetic 
nor  Jurisdictional  strike. 

Splinters  and  Chips  (Evansville,  Ind.)  for  December,  1920, 


STRIKES — SYMPATHETIC  AND  JURISDICTIONAL  141 

contains  this  comment  on  the  jurisdictional  strike,  an  evil  often 
inflicted  on  closed  shop  employers. 

"An  exchange  quotes  a  jurisdictional  fight  in  Cleveland  which  shows 
one  of  the  most  pernicious  dangers  confronting  contractors  and  investors 
when  dealing  under  'closed  shop.' 

"The  international  office  of  the  carpenters  has  called  a  strike  on  a  large 
office  building  to  sandbag  the  contractors  into  allowing  that  craft  the 
privilege  of  hanging  metal  doors. 

"This  is  a  disputed  privilege  and  to  have  the  matter  settled  for  all 
time,  the  international  president  has  ordered  the  strike,  though  it  will 
be  a  couple  of  months  before  the  building  is  ready  for  the  doors.  Moral : 
Have  all  your  work  done  under  open  shop  conditions,  thus  insuring  work 
done  as  you  contract." 

Do  you  know  that  during  a  critical  period  of  our  war 
activity  the  Army  Supply  Base  in  Brooklyn  was  the  most  needed 
piece  of  work  in  this  country  ?  The  work  had  reached  the  point 
where  sixty-two  automatic  electric  elevators  were  to  be  installed. 
The  unions  of  electrical  workers  and  elevator  constructors  then 
entered  upon  a  dispute  between  themselves  as  to  which  union 
was  entitled  to  do  the  work.  The  construction,  was  tied  up  for 
four  months  at  a  vital  period,  when  it  was  necessary  to  aid  the 
successful  prosecution  of  the  war.  Such  disputes  between  unions, 
where  no  question  of  the  employer's  fairness  or  reasonableness  is 
concerned,  tie  up  yearly  vast  amounts  of  work. 

(From  the  November  26,  1920  bulletin  of  the  Sioux  City, 
Iowa,  Employers'  Association.) 

Arthur  M.  Evans,  in  the  Chicago  Tribune,  cites  some  of  the  instances, 
too  long  for  reproduction,  which  have  caused  the  shelving  of  approxi- 
mately $150,000,000.00  worth  of  work  in  Chicago  alone. 

Among  them  is  the  case  of  electricians  in  a  large  apartment  striking 
"because  the  fixtures  were  not  installed  until  the  tenants  could  make 
their  individual  selections."  Carpenters  on  the  Drake  Hotel  demanded 
"waiting  time"  while  they  were  out  on  a  jurisdictional  strike;  result  was 
120  carpenters  out  for  six  or  seven  weeks.  Other  jurisdictional  strikes 
between  bricklayers  and  painters,  bricklayers  and  electricians,  carpenters 
and  plasterers,  etc.  Statisticians  have  contended  that  66  per  cent  of  indus- 
trial interruptions  are  caused  directly  by  jurisdictional  disputes  among  the 
various  union  crafts.  Does  this  mean  anything  to  you? 

Nature  and  Causes 

(From  Dr.  Frank  T.  Stockton's  book,  "The  Closed  Shop  in 
American  Trade  Unions,"  published  by  Johns  Hopkins  Univer- 
sity in  1911.  Pages  65  and  66.) 

When 'the  trade  or  territorial  jurisdiction  claimed  by  two  unions 
is  identical  or  overlaps,  the  members  of  the  two  unions  ordinarily  refuse 


142  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

to  work  with  each  other.  In  1898  for  instance,  the  "Baltimore  organiza- 
tion" of  painters  in  its  struggle  with  the  "Lafayette  organization"  declared 
"all  painters  not  affiliated  with  the  Baltimore  headquarters  to  be  non- 
union men."  Seceding  local  unions  and  the  national  union  have  always 
been  especially  hostile  to  one  another.  When  the  trade  unions  from  1881 
on  began  to  demand  independence  from  the  Knights  of  Labor,  the  latter 
refused  to  allow  members  of  the  unions  to  be  employed  in  the  shops 
controlled  by  them.  It  was  recognized  very  early  that  the  closed 
shop  might  be  a  powerful  weapon  in  many  jurisdictional  disputes. 
Among  those  in  which  it  has  been  used  in  recent  years  are  the  disputes 
between  the  Glass  Bottle  Blowers  and  the  Flint  Glass  Workers,  between 
.the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  the  Wood  Workers,  between 
the  Plumbers  and  Steam  Fitters,  between  the  Granite  Cutters,  the  Stone 
Cutters,  and  the  Marble  Workers,  and  between  the  Bricklayers  and 
Masons  and  Plasterers. 

When  the  jurisdictions  claimed  by  two  unions  are  identical,  mem- 
bers of  the  one  organization  refuse  to  work  with  those  of  the  other 
under  all  circumstances.  But  if  their  jurisdictions  merely  overlap, 
as  in  the  dispute  between  the  Glass  Bottle  Blowers  and  the  Flint  Glass 
Workers,  the  members  of  one  of  the  unions  do  not  ordinarily  refuse  to 
work  with  members  of  the  other  except  on  the  particular  class  of  em- 
ployment in  dispute.  Similarly,  the  Woodworkers  would  not  complain 
if  a  member  of  the  Carpenters  was  hired  to  make  repairs  on  a  shop 
in  which  the  Woodworkers  were  employed,  but  they  would  strike  if  a 
member  of  the  Carpenters  was  hired  to  do  woodworking. 

In  commenting  upon,  the  constantly  recurring  jurisdictional  disputes 
between  trade  unions,  the  editor  of  the  Plumbers,  Gas  Fitters  and  Steam 
Fitters'  Journal  in  1896  lamented  that  less  courtesy  had  ordinarily  been 
shown  to  the  holder  of  an  "opposition  card"  and  that  life  had  been 
made  "more  bitter"  for  him  than  in  the  case  of  "one  who  has  always 
remained  outside  the  pale  of  united  labor  and  who  has  always  been 
inimical  to  its  interests."  The  unions  have  felt  that  when  a  non-unionist 
secures  employment  in  a  shop  controlled  by  them,  it  will  not  ordinarily 
be  difficult  to  induce  him  to  join  their  ranks.  But  the  union  in  control 
is  extremely  reluctant  to  allow  a  member  of  a  rival  or  hostile  union  to  be 
employed  in  a  shop.  There  is  always  the  danger  that  he  may  win  over 
the  shop  to  his  own  union. 

Jurisdictional  Disputes  Damage  Industry 

(Extracts  from,  "Jurisdiction  in  American  Building  Trades 
Unions,"  by  Dr.  Nathaniel  R.  Whitney,  published  by  Johns  Hop- 
kins University,  1914.  Italics  ours.  Dr.  Whitney  clearly  shows 
the  great  harm  wrought  to  workers  by  jurisdictional  disputes. 
Workers  in  open  shop  plants  are  not  bothered  to  any  great  extent 
by  them'.) 

To  one  who  studies  the  history  of  trade-union  development  or  observes 
the  present  activities  of  the  unions,  one  of  the  most  obtrusive  facts  is  the 
frequent  and  almost  interminable  disputes  between  different  organizations 
or  between  different  branches  of  the  same  organization  over  the  question 


STRIKES — SYMPATHETIC  AND  JURISDICTIONAL  143 

of  jurisdiction  in  one  form  or  another.  An  examination  of  the  records 
for  the  past  twenty  years  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  into 
which  as  a  sort  of  melting  pot  the  contending  parties  pour  their  quarrels 
with  the  hope,  that  by  the  addition  of  the  elements  of  conference  and 
agreement,  peace  will  result,  shows  the  great  frequency  and  bitterness  of 
these  disputes  as  well  as  the  necessity  for  overcoming  them  if  labor  is  to 
attain  really  effective  combination. 

The  convention  proceedings  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  each 
year  contain  extensive  references  by  the  president  or  the  executive  council 
to  the  prevalence  of  jurisdictional  disputes.  In  his  report  to  the  conven- 
tion in  1903,  for  instance,  President  Gompers  called  attention  to  the 
grave  dangers  which  confronted  the  organization  by  reason  of  the  many 
jurisdictional  disputes.  Many  efforts,  he  said,  had  been  made  to  settle 
them  by  arbitration  and  agreement,  but  the  unions  frequently  refused  to 
accept  the  awards  of  an  arbitrator,  and  insisted  on  their  own  narrow  inter- 
pretation of  jurisdiction.  He  pointed  out  that  during  the  year  there  were 
requests  from  unions  for  the  revocation  of  no  less  than  thirty  charters  of 
international  unions.  Some  unions  which  had  no  jurisdiction  troubles 
had  deliberately  put  themselves  in  the  way  of  them  by  extending  their 
claims  to  jurisdiction  for  no  better  reason  than  that  other  organizations 
had  extended  theirs. 

The  Labor  World  Is  Disrupted 

In  spite  of  the  exhortation  of  President  Gompers  and  the  warnings 
of  the  executive  council,  disputes  continued  to  arise  with  unabated  fre- 
quency. In  1908,  during  the  eleven  days  in  which  the  convention  of  the 
Federation  was  in  session,  there  were  nineteen  cases  of  jurisdictional 
disputes  under  consideration.  To  each  of  these  disputes  there  were  at 
least  two  parties.  This  makes  the  number  of  unions  involved  at  least 
thirty-eight,  and  when  one  further  thinks  of  the  number  of  members 
in  these  thirty-eight  unions  some  idea  will  be  afforded  of  the  extent 
to  which  the  labor  ivorld  is  disrupted  and  agitated  by  such  disputes.  In 
addition  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  jurisdiction  disputes  which 
have  attained  the  dignity  of  national  importance — that  is,  of  being  dis- 
cussed by  the  national  officials  of  the  two  contending  unions — are  con- 
sidered by  the  Federation.  Besides  these  there  are  almost  countless  con- 
troversies over  jurisdiction.  Each  national  union  has  from  a  dozen  to 
several  hundred  local  unions  under  its  authority;  each  one  of  these  thou- 
sands of  subordinate  unions  is  likely  at  some  time  to  have  its  trade 
infringed  upon  by  a  branch  of  another  national  union,  and  these  disputes 
may  be  and  frequently  are  settled  locally  and  so  not  become  an  issue 
between  the  national  unions.  Morover,  there  are  many  jurisdictional  dis- 
putes between  branches  of  the  same  national  union  which  are  settled  with- 
out recourse  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  The  national  unions 
also  ordinarily  dispose  of  local  dual  unions  without  recourse  to  the  Fed- 
eration. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  was  relieved  of  some  of  the  bur- 
den involved  in  the  consideration  of  jurisdictional  disputes  by  the  forma- 
tion in  1908  of  the  Building  Trades  Department,  to  which  all  matters 


144  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

affecting  particularly  the  building  trades  are  referred.  Since,  as  has  been 
noted,  the  building  trades  offer  the  most  fertile  field  for  jurisdiction  diffi- 
culties, the  establishment  of  the  Department  has  resulted  in  the  transfer 
of  the  greater  part  of  these  disputes  to  it,  though  the  Federation  as  a  kind 
of  appellate  court  still  passes  upon  many  contests  in  which  building  trades 
unions  are  participants.  The  records  of  the  Building  Trades  Department 
show  no  diminution  in  the  number  of  jurisdictional  disputes.  The  dele- 
gates sent  by  the  Plumbers  to  the  convention  of  the  Department  in  1909 
reported  that  the  time  of  the  convention  was  taken  up  mainly  by  juris- 
dictional controversies,  and  they  added,  "The  situation  is  getting  to  be  a 
critical  one  throughout  the  entire  country  and  with  all  the  building  trades," 
Some  twenty  jurisdictional  disputes  were  considered  by  the  convention 
of  1910,  and  in  1912  eighteen  disputes  were  referred  to  committees.  In 
addition,  a  number  of  disagreements  which  had  developed  from  juris- 
dictional difficulties  were  discussed. 

For  instance,  the  expense  must  have  been  very  heavy  not  only  to  the 
Steam  Fitters,  but  to  other  unions  as  well  when  the  Steam  Fitters  were 
on  strike  during  the  first  six  or  seven  months  of  1910  to  gain  control  of 
the  pipe-fitting  industry  in  New  York.  A  consciousness  of  the  heavy  cost 
of  jurisdictional  difficulties  is  shown  in  the  following  statement  of  Presi- 
dent Short,  made  at  the  session  of  the  Building  Trades  Department  in 
1911:  "The  jurisdictional  disputes  which  have  become  the  bane  of  our 
lives  must  end,  and  the  only  way  this  enormous  loss  of  money  to  our 
membership  can  be  ended  is  by  loyalty  to  this  Department"  The  presi- 
dent of  the  Hod  Carriers'  and  Building  Laborers'  Union  said  in  1908  that 
their  local  union  in  Chicago  had  recently  been  "drawn  into  one  of  those 
cursed  jurisdictional  fights  between  the  Carpenters  and  the  Electricians, 
which  put  five  hundred  of  our  men  upon  the  street  for  five  weeks.  *  *  * 
Instead  of  wasting  our  strength,  time  and  money  in  fighting  one  another, 
we  should  devote  it  to  organizing  the  unorganized." 

The  Elevator  Constructors  had  a  serious  and  costly  dispute  with  the 
Machinists  in  Chicago  over  the  installation  of  pumps  connected  with 
hydraulic  elevators.  A  strike  which  resulted  which  lasted  for  more  than 
two  years,  during  which  most  of  the  elevator  men  in  the  city  were  out 
of  work,  while  members  of  the  Machinists  and  other  unions  supplied 
their  places  with  the  Otis  Elevator  Company.  Finally,  on  May  I,  1911, 
the  Elevator  Constructors  as  the  result  of  an  agreement  went  back  to  work 
and  the  Machinists  were  displaced.  From  that  time  on,  the  Elevator 
Constructors  were  treated  as  "scabs"  by  the  Machinists ;  they  were  beaten 
and  even  killed,  so  that  the  union  was  forced  to  hire  detectives  to  protect 
its  members  and  to  convict  the  "sluggers."  This  difficulty  alone  cost  the 
union  thousands  of  dollars.  The  losses  in  wages  due  to  disputes  are 
not  often  estimated  by  trade-union  officials,  but  we  occasionally  come 
across  such  estimates.  For  instance,  in  1910  the  secretary  of  the  Brick- 
layers said:  "Our  disputes  with  the  Operative  Plasterers'  Union  during 
the  past  year  have  taken  thousands  of  dollars  out  of  our  International 
treasury  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  our  interests.  The  loss  in  wages 
to  our  own  members  has  amounted  to  at  least  $300,000.  The  losses  to 
our  employers  have  been  up  in  the  thousands  also.  *  *  *  In  several 


STRIKES — SYMPATHETIC  AND  JURISDICTIONS  145 

instances  the  writ  of  injunction  has  been  brought  into  play  for  the  pur- 
pose of  restraining  unions  involved  in  trade  disputes  and  unless  the 
unions  *  *  *  provide  some  means  of  eliminating  jurisdictional  warfare, 
it  is  only  a  question  of  time  when  the  legislatures  of  our  country  will  be 
called  upon  to  pass  laws  that  will  penalize  labor  unionists  who  indulge 
in  such  struggles." 

In  the  examples  which  have  been  cited  the  attempt  was  made  to  give 
some  indication  of  the  money  cost  in  each  case  to  only  one  of  the  parties 
engaged  in  the  quarrel.  It  is  obvious  that  the  total  cost  must  be  much 
greater  than  this,  since  there  is  always  at  least  one  other  union  directly 
connected  with  the  dispute,  which  must  likewise  expend  a  large  sum  of 
money  to  preserve  what  it  regards  as  its  rights.  In  addition  many  unions, 
whose  wage  loss  must  be  taken  into  account,  may  be  forced  out  on 
strike  in  sympathy  with  one  or  the  other  of  the  principals. 

If  we  turn  our  attention  as  far  west  as  Denver,  we  find  during  1909 
another  impressive  illustration  of  the  havoc  wrought  by  jurisdictional 
controversies.  Here  again  the  trouble  started  between  the  two  unions  of 
carpenters.  A  large  part  of  the  Denver  local  branch  of  the  Amalgamated 
Society  of  Carpenters  joined  the  local  union  of  the  Brotherhood  and  the 
Amalgamated  Society  was  denied  representation  in  the  Denver  Building 
Trades  Council. 

A  series  of  strikes  against  the  Brotherhood  men  was  inaugurated 
which  involved  all  affiliated  organizations  and  caused  great  loss  and 
inconvenience  to  owners  and  builders. 

Result  in  Violence  Between  Unions 

Chicago  also  furnished  an  illustration  of  the  effect  of  jurisdictional 
disputes  in  leading  to  violence  between  unions.  The  International  Associa- 
tion of  Steam  Fitters  having  been  suspended  from  the  Building  Trades 
Department,  the  Chicago  Building  Trades  Council  in  1911  decided  to  aid 
the  Plumbers  in  establishing  a  local  branch  of  steam  fitters.  Trouble 
began  immediately.  Two  of  the  trades  unaflftliated  with  the  local  council 
took  the  side  of  the  Steam  Fitters,  and  several  included  in  the  Council 
also  aided  them  in  every  way  possible.  If  a  contractor  employed  the 
Steam  Fitters  to  do  the  steam  fitting,  the  trades  loyal  to  the  Council 
would  refuse  to  work  for  him:  if  on  the  other  hand  he  employed  the 
Plumbers,  the  organizations  friendly  to  the  Steam  Fitters  would  strike. 
It  was  thus  made  impossible  to  have  work  done,  no  matter  what  the 
contractor  or  owner  was  willing  to  do,  and  work  on  a  large  number  of 
buildings  was  at  a  standstill  for  many  months.  The  feeling  between  the 
hostile  unions  was  intensely  bitter.  It  was  openly  charged  that  thugs  were 
hired  by  union  men  to  assault  other  union  men,  and  three  of  the  most 
prominent  local  officials  of  the  Plumbers  were  arrested  on  the  charge 
of  conspiracy  to  kill.  A  local  agreement  was  finally  reached  which  put 
an  end  to  this  warfare. 

We  must  now  note  still  another  item  in  the  cost  of  this  internecine 
strife,  that  is,  the  alienation  of  public  sympathy  from  the  trade  unions. 
One  does  not  ordinarily  realize  how  important  an  element  in  the  success 
of  organized  labor  is  the  sympathy  and  co-operation  of  the  public  but 


146  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

if  he  stops  to  consider  merely  those  cases  which  have  come  under  his  ow 
observation  he  will  recall  that  those  strikes  or  other  labor  movement 
which  have  received  "the  moral  support  of  the  community  have  almos 
uniformly  been  successful,  while  those  which  have  lacked  this  suppoi 
were  with  few  exceptions  failures.  The  efforts  made  by  both  employer 
and  unionists  to  enlist  public  sympathy  in  their  cause  furnish  addition; 
evidence  that  anything  that  tends  to  alienate  public  sympathy  is  an  extreme 
ly  expensive  indulgence.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  jurisdictional  die 
putes  provide  one  of  the  prime  reasons  for  much  of  the  widespread  publi 
criticism  of  trade  unionism. 

The  gravity  of  the  losses  occasioned  to  contractors  by  jurisdiction; 
disputes  is  recognised  by  many  unionists.  Secretary  Spencer  of  the  Buik 
ing  Trades  Department  said:  "Unfortunately  there  has  never  been  a 
attempt  exerted  heretofore  to  adjust  amicably  jurisdiction  claims,  and  th 
policy  of  tying  up  the  building  in  order  to  secure  a  temporary  gain  ov< 
one  union  whose  members  have  seen  fit  to  claim  certain  work  that  ma 
or  may  not  be  controlled  by  the  other  union,  has  been  recklessly  followe< 
In  this  the  contractors  and  owners  involved  have  complained  bitterly  an 
properly  that  such  disputes  should  be  settled  among  ourselves  withoi 
drawing  them  into  them  to  be  abused  by  one  or  cursed  by  the  other  di: 
putant.  *  *  *  It  is  not  properly  within  the  province  of  organized  labor  1 
assume  a  position  that  will  militate  against  the  progress  of  the  buildir 
business  as  an  industry."  In  announcing  in  November,  1906,  that  an  agre< 
ment  had  been  signed  between  the  Operative  Plasterers  and  the  Bricl 
layers,  thus  bringing  to  an  end  a  conflict  which  had  begun  in  1868,  tf 
editor  of  the  Bricklayers'  and  Mason's  Journal  said:  "The  agreemei 
removes  from  the  trade  union  movement  a  jurisdictional  dispute  that  fa 
involved  the  building  industry  for  over  thirty  years,  and  which  has  n( 
only  been  a  source  of  great  loss  to  the  journeymen,  financially,  but  h; 
caused  most  vexatious  delays  in  building  operations,  and  consequent  final 
cial  loss  to  employers  and  to  the  building  public,  the  latter  being  innocei 
parties  to  the  trouble  and  perfectly  helpless  in  providing  a  remedy  f( 
its  correction.  i , 

A  great  deal  of  trouble  and  loss  was  caused  to  the  builders  of  Chicag 
by  the  Machinery  Movers  who  claimed  the  exclusive  right  to  deliver  a 
machinery  inside  of  buildings  and  in  many  cases  also  to  set  it  up.  Th 
organization  caused  considerable  delay  in  the  construction  of  the  Harr 
Trust  Building,  and  in  a  period  of  less  than  a  year  was  responsible  f( 
no  less  than  fifty  separate  strikes  during  which  the  work  of  employe 
was  delayed. 

Paying  Two  Men  for  One  Job 

Delay  and  annoyance  are  not  the  only  evils  suffered  by  employe 
from  interunion  disputes.  They  are  sometimes  compelled  to  tear  o 
work  that  has  been  placed  by  one  union  and  to  allow  another  union  clair 
ing  the  work  to  replace  it.  An  effort  of  this  sort  was  made  in  July,  190 
when  all  the  brick  work  on  the  Wanamaker  store  building  in  Philadelph 
was  stopped  because  certain  concrete  work  was  under  the  direction  < 
the  Roebling  Construction  Company  and  consisted  merely  in  filling 
concrete  as  a  backing  for  terra-cotta  cornices.  The  local  bricklayers  i 


STRIKES— SYMPATHETIC  AND  JURISDICTION AL  147 

sisted  that  the  work  which  had  already  been  done  should  be  torn  out 
and  that  the  bricklayers  be  paid  for  all  time  they  lost  while  being  on 
strike  to  enforce  their  claim.  The  work  of  the  contractors  was  delayed 
for  several  weeks  and  a  number  of  conferences  were  held,  one  of  which 
was  attended  by  the  architects,  the  various  contractors  and  the  local  and 
national  representatives  of  the  unions.  The  local  bricklayers  were  finally 
ordered  by  the  national  officers  to  return  to  work,  and  were  not  allowed  to 
collect  from  the  Construction  Company  for  their  lost  time.  Occasionally 
in  order  to  get  the  work  done  the  employers  must  pay  one  group  of  men 
for  actually  performing  the  work  and,  at  same  time  pay  another  group 
belonging  to  a  different  union  as  if  they  had  done  it,  thus  paying  twice 
for  the  same  piece  of  work. 

We  must  also  take  some  account  of  the  jurisdictional  dispute  from 
the  point  of  view  of  society  as  a  whole. 

Regarded  from  this  point  of  view,  jurisdictional  disputes  may  be 
indicted  on  four  counts:  (i)  They  waste  both  labor  and  capital;  (2) 
They  make  it  impracticable  in  many  cases  to  use  improved  appliances  and 
cheaper  materials;  (3)  They  are  responsible  for  hesitancy  in  undertaking 
and  increased  expense  in  prosecuting  building,  to  the  detriment  of  the 
building  industry;  (4)  Finally  where  the  disputes  are  long  continued  they 
are  responsible  for  that  whole  train  of  evil  results  which  follows  upon 
idleness  and  poverty. 

One  of  the  most  tangible  results  of  jurisdictional  disputes  is  that 
builders  are  frequently  compelled  to  forego  the  use  of  improved  appliances, 
cheaper  materials  and  more  efficient  methods  because  they  cannot  get  the 
unions  to  agree  as  to  which  of  them  is  to  use  the  new  device  or  control 
the  new  material.  Thus,  in  Chicago  automatic  stokers  were  being  built 
and  used  until  the  disputes  over  this  work  between  the  Machinists,  the 
Millwrights  and  the  Structural  Iron  Workers  became  so  frequent  and 
so  bitter  that  the  construction  was  either  delayed  or  abandoned. 

On  account  of  these  difficulties  and  uncertainties,  the  whole  building 
industry  moves  more  sluggishly  and  society  is  compelled  to  pay  for  its 
building  construction  a  price  increased  sufficiently  to  maintain,  as  it  were, 
an  insurance  fund  against  the  possible  delays  and  expenses  due  to  juris- 
dictional controversies.  Thus  the  industry  is  retarded  mainly  by  those 
who  ought  to  be  its  chief  friends.  That  this  state  of  affairs  is  realized 
and  deprecated  by  the  unions  themselves  is  shown  by  the  following 
statement  in  the  report  of  the  executive  council  of  the  Building  Trades 
Department  in  1912:  "If  we  of  the  building  trades  were  alone  involved 
in  the  settlement  of  these  disputes,  we  could  afford  to  continue  our  dis- 
cussion of  them  even  though  it  may  sometimes  result  in  conflict,  but  the 
cause  for  most  concern  lies  in  the  fact  that  we  occupy  perhaps  the  minor 
position  in  this  embarrassing  situation.  At  all  events  we  have  no  moral 
or  ethical  right  to  embroil  the  contractor  and  owner  of  the  building  under 
construction.  *  *  *  In  every  avenue  of  trade  and  commerce  the  aim 
is  to  encourage  a  greater  field  of  activity,  to  increase  the  volume  of 
business  year  after  year.  By  the  same  token  it  should  be  our  purpose 
to  stimulate  greater  activity  in  building  erection.  Our  talents  and  capabil- 
ities should  be  devoted  in  large  measure  to  attain  this  end,  for  such  a 


148  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

termination  of  our  united  endeavors  would  simply  mean  more  continuous 
employment  for  the  members  of  our  several  organizations.  That  is  to 
say,  ifvwe  can  demonstrate  our  ability  to  settle  trade  grievances  among 
ourselves,  without  involving  the  architect,  owner  and  contractor,  we  will 
immediately  inspire  confidence  in  the  mind  of  the  investing  public,'  with 
a  resultant  stimulas  in  building  operations." 

Jurisdictional  Disputes  Are  Expensive 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  John  R.  Alpine,  president  of  the 
Plumbers'  Union,  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission, 
May  27,  1914.  Italics  ours.  Mr.  Alpine  admits  that  great  damage 
is  caused  to  employers  and  public  by  Jurisdictional  disputes.) 

MR.  THOMPSON:  What  was  the  duration  of  the  Jurisdictional  dis- 
pute between  the  steamfitters  and  plumbers,  and  what  extent  of  country 
did  it  cover? 

MR.  ALPINE:  Well,  prior  to  the  year  1899  there  existed  an  inter- 
national labor  organization  which  comprised  in  its  ranks  plumbers,  steam 
fitters,  and  gas  fitters,  which  was  known  as  the  International  Association; 
that  was  the  title.  In  1889  that  association  became  known  as  the  United 
Association,  which  is  the  association  of  to-day.  And  at  a  convention  held 
in  Washington,  D.  C.,  in  October  of  1889  the  steam  fitters  became  disasso- 
ciated with  the  general  organization  and  instituted  an  organization  of  their 
own;  so  that  you  could  say  that,  while  prior  to  1889  there  had  always 
existed  differences  of  opinion  with  regard  to  working  lines  or  demarca- 
tion lines,  that  after  1889  those  differences  became  more  pronounced 
because  of  the  fact  the  two  organizations  were  then  in  existence.  From 
that  time  until,  well,  until  a  year  ago,  those  Jurisdictional  strifes  existed 
throughout  the  country. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :    For  a  great  many  years  ? 

MR.  ALPINE:  Since  1889,  and,  as  I  say,  prior  to  that,  but  more  pro- 
nounced since  that  time. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  And  in  our  opinion  have  the  Jurisdictional  contests 
which  have  been  waged  in  the  years  gone  been  very  costly  to  the  building 
industry? 

MR.  ALPINE:     There  is  no  question  about  it.     They  have. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Have  you  any  opinion  as  to  the  public  cost  in 
round  numbers? 

MR.  ALPINE  :  I  haven't  any  opinion  that  would  be — I  am  not  qualified 
to  answer  that  so  that  it  might  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  record.  In  our 
controversy  the  loss  in  dollars  and  cents,  as  represented  by  the  cessation 
of  labor,  is  of  such  a  magnitude  that  nobody  has  yet  undertaken  the  task 
of  computation. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :    Do  you  think  it  would  run  into  millions  of  dollars  ? 

MR.  ALPINE  :    No  doubt  of  it. 

MR,  THOMPSON:  In  other  words,  it  has  been  a  very  expensive  prop- 
osition for  the  building  trades? 

MR.  ALPINE:    Most  assuredly. 

MR.  THOMPSON:    Workers  and  builders  as  well? 

MR.  ALPINE:    Most  assuredly.  \ 


INDUSTRIAL  WARFARE  149 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

Industrial  Warfare 

In  this  chapter  we  will  study  something  of  the  conduct  of 
strikes  and  lockouts  by  both  parties.  Charges  made  as  to  the 
general  activities  of  employers  in  non-strike  periods  will  also  be 
referred  to. 

It  would  not,  of  course,  be  correct  to  say  that  all  closed  shop 
unions  resort  to  violence  or  other  unfair  and  illegal  practices. 

But  many  of  them,  in  their  efforts  to  enforce  the  closed 
shop  and  other  demands,  do  resort  to  such  tactics.  They  are 
sufficiently  numerous  and  of  sufficient  importance  to  the  public 
welfare  to  merit  study  as  to  their  causes  and  remedies.  They 
occur  to  a  far  larger  extent  under  the  closed  shop,  and  in  efforts 
to  establish  the  closed  shop,  than  under  open  shop  operation. 

Closed  Shop  Without  Coercion? 

There  are  those  who  tell  us  that  unions  if  they  "have  a  fair 
chance  to  organize,  will  win  their  fight  without  coercion."  Per- 
haps those  persons  have  had  the  "wool  pulled  over  their  eyes" 
by  their  closed  shop  friends.  In  Miss  Marot's  book  we  read  on 
page  121  (italics  ours)  : 

On  grounds,  then,  of  ethical  implication,  and  in  the  interests  of 
justice  and  industrial  peace,  the  "free  American  workingmen"  and  the 
non-union  employer  became  fit  subjects  for  coercion. 

Miss  Marot  is  a  very  prominent  champion  of  the  closed  shop, 
and  was  for  eight  years  secretary  of  the  Woman's  Trade  Union 
League  of  New  York. 

How  far  they  will  go  in  the  kind  of  force  they  are  willing 
to  employ  against  the  worker  is  shown  in  the  official  report  of 
Mr.  Luke  Grant  to  the  United  States  Commission  on  Industrial 
Relations*  made  in  1915.  Mr.  Grant  is  a  union  carpenter,  and 
both  before  and  after  his  report  was  -officially  connected  with 
labor  unions.  He  said,  pages  115-117: 

In  recent  years  there  has  been  a  marked  change  in  the  nature  of  the 
violence  committed  in  the  building  trades  and  in  the  methods  used.  The 
ordinary  workman  who  in  former  days  was  apt  to  use  his  fists  on  the 
head  of  a  scab  for  the  sake  of  the  cause,  seldom  does  so  now.  His  place 
has  been  taken  by  the  professional  thug  and  gunman.  Violence  has  be- 
come commercialized  and  made  more  brutal.  Assaults  on  non-union 
workmen  are  seldom  made  openly  as  in  former  days  when  the  strikers 
did  the  assaulting.  The  professional  slugger  lies  in  wait  for  his  victim, 
assaults  him  with  a  bludgeon  or  probably  shoots  him  to  death  *  *  *  . 
If  the  destruction  of  property  seems  more  expedient  than  the  slugging  of 


150  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

non-union  men,  the  professional  will  attend  to  that  *  *  *  .  That 
such  a  system  of  organized  thuggery  obtains  in  many  of  the  building 
trades  unions  is  beyond  dispute. 

Judicial  Decision  Recites  the  Facts  of  Violence 

(From  decision  of  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals 
for  the  Seventh  Circuit,  October  term  and  session,  1913,  in  the 
case  of  Ryan  vs.  United  States.  This  was  the  case  resulting  in 
the  conviction  of  leaders  of  the  Structural  Iron  Workers  for 
dynamiting  of  property.  The  portion  of  the  decision  here 
quoted  is  an  epitome  of  the  25,000  pages  of  testimony  in  the 
case.) 

The  facts  thus  recited,  as  proven  by  the  Government  on  the  trial, 
may  be  mentioned  in  part  as  follows : 

The  nature  of  the  contest  between  the  International  Association  of 
Bridge  and  Structural  Iron  Workers,  of  which  "all  of  the  defendants 
except  two  that  were  convicted  were  members,"  and  the  American 
Bridge  Co.,  and  of  the  ensuing  general  strike  declared  and  supported  by 
the  association  "throughout  the  United  States,"  extending  from  1905 
continuously  down  to  "the  time  of  the  trial"  is  described.  In  the  early 
months  it  was  attended  by  "numerous  acts  of  violence"  in  various  places, 
and  commencing  in  1906  dynamite  was  brought  into  use  "to  blow  up 
and  destroy  buildings  and  bridges  that  were  being  erected  by  'open-shop' 
concerns,"  and  such  explosions  started  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  country 
and  "extended  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific"  in  many  places.  This 
course  continued  "until  the  arrest  of  the  McNamaras  and  McManigal  in 
April,  1911."  Almost  100  explosions  thus  occurred,  "damaging  and 
destroying  buildings  and  bridges  in  process  of  erection  where  the  work 
was  being  done  by  'open-shop'  concerns."  And  "no  explosions  took  place 
in  connection  with  work  of  a  similar  character  that  was  being  done  by 
'closed-shop'  concerns."  From  February  17,  1908,  until  April  22,  1911, 
seventy  of  such  explosions  occurred,  forty-three  of  which  were  in  con- 
nection with  work  either  of  the  National  Erectors'  Association  or  Ameri- 
can Bridge  Co.  and  affiliated  concerns,  and  twenty-seven  of  the  explosions 
occurred  in  connection  with  the  work  of  independent  concerns  in  no  way 
connected  with  either  thereof.  Dynamite  was  first  used  together  with 
fuse  and  fulminating  caps,  the  fuse  being  generally  about  fifty  feet  in 
length,  "and  when  lighted  the  explosion  would  occur  in  about  half  an 
hour."  Nitroglycerine  was  next  brought  into  use  provided  with  a  clock 
and  battery  and  attachments  to  be  used  together  with  dynamite  and 
nitroglycerine,  constituting  what  was  termed  an  infernal  machine,  to  be 
used  in  connection  with  the  dynamite  and  nitroglycerine  in  the  destruction 
of  buildings  and  bridges  of  "open-shop  concerns" ;  and  "from  this  time 
forward  the  clock  and  battery  was  used  in  connection  with  charges  of 
dynamite  and  nitroglycerine  in  the  destruction  of  life  and  property." 

These  infernal  machines  "were  so  made  and  arranged  that  they  could 
be  and  were  set  to  cause  the  explosion  to  take  place  several  hours  after 
it  was  set,  so  that  the  person  setting  the  explosion  could  be  hundreds 
of  miles  away  when  the  explosion  took  place."  The  headquarters  of  the 


INDUSTRIAL  WARFARE  151 


international  association  was  at  the  outset  in  Cleveland,  Ohio,  but  was 
removed  to  Indianapolis,  Ind.,  early  in  1906,  and  there  remained.  The 
various  places  in  which  the  several  defendants  were  located  mentioned 
in  various  states.  The  dynamite  and  nitroglycerine  which  were  used  for 
the  explosions  mentioned  "were  transported  in  passenger  cars  on  pas- 
senger trains  of  common  carriers  engaged  in  the  transportation  of  passen- 
gers for  hire  into  and  over  and  across"  various  states  named.  Explosions 
took  place  "in  alt  of  the  states  named,  and  a  number  of  times  in  some 
of  them  and  were  planned  to  be  made  in  other  states  named."  In  con- 
nection with  this  work  of  destruction,  "dynamite  and  nitroglycerine  were 
purchased  and  stolen  and  various  storage  plans  arranged  to  conveniently 
store  such  explosives  that  were  to  be  used  in  the  destruction  of  property 
in  the  various  states"  referred  to ;  and  "such  explosives  were  carried  and 
taken  on  passenger  trains  from  such  storage  places  in  the  various  states 
to  various  places  in  the  other  states  where  structural  iron  work  was  in 
process  of  erection,"  and  the  various  locations  are  named. 

Large  quantities  of  dynamite  and  nitroglycerine  were  at  various 
times  stored  in  vaults  of  the  association  in  Indianapolis  and  also  in  the 
basement  of  the  building.  These  storage  place  "were  so  arranged  that 
dynamite  and  nitroglycerine  could  be  readily  obtained  and  transported 
from  such  place  of  storage"  to  other  places  for  this  use  in  destruction  of 
property,  also  clocks  and  batteries,  as  described,  and  fuse  and  fulminating 
caps,  as  well,  in  large  quantities,  "all  to  be  used  in  connection  with  the 
dynamite  and  nitroglycerine  for  the  destruction  of  property" ;  and  some 
thereof  were  stored  in  the  vaults  of  the  association  at  Indianapolis,  "so 
that  the  same  would  be  accessible  for  immediate  use  in  connection  with 
any  explosion  desired  at  any  other  place  in  the  United  States."  For  the 
purpose  of  carrying  such  explosives  "suit  cases  and  carrying  bags  were 
obtained  and  purchased,  in  which  such  dynamite  and  nitroglycerine, 
clocks,  batteries,  fuses,  caps,  and  attachments  could  be  conveniently  placed 
and  carried  by  persons  going  from  a  place  of  storage  to  a  place  in 
another  state  on  passenger  trains  of  common  carriers,  etc."  All  the  ex- 
plosions mentioned  "were  accomplished  with  the  materials  including  nit- 
roglycerine and  dynamite  so  stored,  and  were  transported  "from  said 
storage  place  to  the  various  places  throughout  the  United  States  where 
such  explosions  occurred  in  suit  cases  and  carrying  bags  by  persons 
traveling  upon  the  passenger  trains  of  common  carriers,"  etc. 

"Four  explosions  occurred  in  one  night  at  the  same  hour  in  Indiana- 
polis," and  "explosions  were  planned  to  take  place  on  the  same  night  two 
hours  apart  at  Omaha,  Neb.,  and  Columbus,  Ind.,  and  the  explosions  so 
planned  did  occur  on  the  same  night  at  about  the  same  time  instead  of 
two  hours  apart,  owing  to  the  fact  that  one  clock  was  defective.  The 
explosions  referred  to  at  Omaho  and  Columbus  were  all  "open-shop 
concerns,"  and  the  infernal  machines  used  therein  were  taken  from  the 
storage  places  of  said  materials  above  and  forth.  The  "Times  Building 
at  Los  Angeles  was  destroyed  by  the  use  of  dynamite"  on  October  i, 
1910,  and  twenty-one  persons  killed,  "and  immediately  after  the  happening 
of  this  event  arrangements  were  made  to  have  an  explosion  in  the 
eastern  part  of  the  United  States,  as  an  echo  in  the  East  of  what  had 
occurred  at  Los  Angeles."  Prior  to  "the  arrest  of  the  McNamaras  and 


152  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

McManigal,"  seven  or  eight  explosions  were  planned  "to  take  place  in 
different  parts  of  the  country  widely  separated  on  the  same  night."  All 
the  dynamite  and  nitroglycerine,  "except  the  dynamite  that  was  stolen, 
the  batteries,  clocks,  caps,  fuse  and  attachments,  suit  cases  and  carrying 
cases,  as  well  as  the  expense  and  work  for  carrying  the  explosives  and 
articles  to  be  used  in  connection  therewith,  including  the  expense  incident 
to  the  stealing  of  dynamite,  were  paid  out  of  the  funds  of  the  inter- 
national association,  and  these  funds  were  drawn  from  the  association 
upon  checks  signed  by  the  secretary-treasurer,  John  J.  McNamara,  and 
by  the  president,  Frank  M.  Ryan,"  plaintiff  in  error.  *  *  * 

One  feature  of  circumstantial  evidence  is  brought  out  by  the  testi- 
mony and  justly  pressed  for  consideration,  as  tending  to  prove  the  con- 
spiracy in  all  its  phases,  namely:  That  use  of  explosives  for  destruction 
of  property  as  described  embraced  exclusively  "open-shop  concerns"  and 
was  continuous  and  systematic  from  the  commencement  of  such  course 
up  to  the  time  of  the  above-mentioned  arrest  of  the  McNamaras  and 
McManigal,  and  then  ceased  throughout  the  country.  *  *  * 

We  are  of  opinion,  therefore,  that  the  general  challenge  for  insuf- 
ficiency of  evidence  must  be  overruled;  that  support  for  the  charge  of 
conspiracy,  to  say  the  least,  by  no  means  rests  on  the  testimony  of 
McManigal;  and  that  no  error  appears  in  submission  of  his  testimony 
for  consideration  of  the  jury.  *  *  * 

The  assignments  on  behalf  of  plaintiff  in  error  Ryan  are  overruled, 
and  the  judgment  against  him  must  be  affirmed. 

Use  of  Gunmen  by  Unions 

(From  New  York  Sun  of  May  14,  1915.     The  employment 
of  gun-men  by  New  York  City  unions  is  revealed.) 

The  deeper  Assistant  District  Attorney  Breckenridge  delves  into 
the  alliance  between  union  men  and  gangsters  the  more  startling  becomes 
his  discoveries.  He  has  found  and  expects  to  prove  that  the  despotic 
ring  which  ruled  by  force  in  the  garment  workers'  union  resolved  itself 
in  a  secret  tribunal  and  dealt  out  punishment  to  non-union  men  and 
recalcitrant  union  members ;  to  be  called  before  that  body  meant  a 
beating,  maiming,  and  in  some  cases  death. 

These  mock  courts,  termed  "bloody  assizes"  by  their  victims,  sat 
after  -strike  meetings  of  business  sessions  in  halls  that  the  union  leaders 
hired  in  many  parts  of  the  city  and  sometimes  in  local  headquarters. 
After  the  ordinary  business  was  finished  a  few  officials  with  some  of 
their  strong-arm  men  would  form  around  a  table  with  one  man  sitting 
as  judge.  They  had  what  was  known  as  a  bailiff,  and  the  man  accused 
was  addressed  as  the  defendant. 

Generally  one  or  two  men  were  tolled  off  to  do  the  actual  slugging. 
If  a  man  protested  that  he  was  not  non-union  he  was  knocked  down. 
If  he  became  so  infuriated  as  to  call  his  accuser  a  liar  he  was  beaten 
into  insensibility.  Mr.  Breckenridge  knows  of  three  men  who  had  ears 
cut  off,  and  charges  at  least  one  murder  as  the  result  of  one  of  these 
trials. 

There  are  no  indictments  against  the  employers,  Mr.  Breckenridge 


INDUSTRIAL  WARFARE  153 


said  yesterday,  because  there  has  been  nothing  brought  out  in  the  investi- 
gation to  show  that  the  employers  did  more  than  try  to  defend  them- 
selves against  assault 

"We  have  got  the  gangsters  and  the  labor  men  working  against  each 
other,"  he  said,  "and  they  are  giving  each  other  up.  They  are  running 
for  cover,  so  deep  in  the  system  has  the  investigation  gone,  and  they  are 
cutting  each  other's  throats  in  the  effort  to  gain  protection  for  them- 
selves. There  has  never  been  such  a  revelation." 

(Testimony  of  Arthur  Woods,  Police  Commissioner  of 
New  York  City,  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission,  May 
12,  1915.  Pages  10553-10558  of  testimony.  Official  confirma- 
tion of  statements  made  in  the  New  York  Sun.) 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH:  Has  any  investigation  of  the  use  of  these 
gunmen  in  connection  with  industrial  disputes  ever  been  made  before  to 
your  knowledge  in  New  York,  Mr.  Woods? 

MR.  WOODS  :  Well,  I  cannot  give  you  conclusively  information  about 
that,  but  I  should  say  nothing  like  so  thorough  going  as  this. 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH  :  Has  any  investigation  been  made  to  ascertain 
whether  or  not  they  were  used  in  other  places  than  New  York  City? 

MR.  WOODS  :  I  can  not  tell  you  that ;  there  was  a  recent  disturbance 
at  Roosevelt,  N.  J.,  which  you  remember,  and  it  was  alleged  that  New 
York  gunmen  had  been  brought  out  there;  I  think  probably  they  had. 
But  it  has  been  brought  out  in  that  investigation  that  New  York  gunmen 
have  been  taken  to  other  cities;  we  have  definite  instances  where  they 
have  been  taken  to  Chicago,  Cincinnati,  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  and  other 
cities.  One  01  tne  extraordinary  features  of  the  case  is  that  in  connection 
with  strikes  where  women  are  employed.  Women  are  used  as  "gun- 
women,"  so  to  speak. 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH:  What  organizations  are  affected  by  these  in- 
dictments? What  labor  organizations  were  found  to  have  taken  those 
men,  to  have  used  these  people? 

MR.  WOODS:  The  indictments  had  not  been  found  when  I  left  the 
city;  all  I  can  tell  you  would  be  what  is  contained  in  the  newspapers. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  The  organization  known  on  the  east  side 
as  the  central  body  of  Hebrew  organizations  in  the  east  side? 

MR.  WOODS:     Yes;  I  think  so. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  As  a  result  of  your  investigation,  what 
have  you  found  to  be  the  method  of  procedure  in  industrial  troubles;  do 
these  gangsters  offer  their  services  to  both  sides,  and  take  the  highest 
bidder,  or  do  they  confine  their  operations  and  offer  their  services  to  one 
side  of  the  labor  trouble? 

MR.  WOODS:  I  should  not  say  it  was  "offering  their  services,"  but 
the  result  of  our  investigation  shows  a  course  of  procedure  like  this; 
there  would  be  a  strike  and  the  strikers  would  retain  some  gunmen  to  do 
whatever  forcible  or  violent  work  they  needed.  The  employer,  to  meet 
this  violence,  would,  in  a  comparatively  small  percentage  of  cases,  and 
not  as  many  cases  as  the  gunmen  were  employed  on  the  other  side,  would 
hire  a  private  detective  agency. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  Now,  when  the  unions  employed-  these 
gunmen,  what  function  were  the  gunmen  expected  to  perform? 


154  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

MR.  WOODS  :  To  intimidate  workers  that  were  hired  to  take  the 
place  of  the  strikers. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:     That  is  so-called  scabs? 

MR.  WOODS:  •  Yes,  sir;  so-called  scabs. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  Have  there  been  instances  where  there 
has  been  violence  against  the  so-called  scabs? 

MR.  WJOODS:     Yes,  sir. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:     To  what  degree? 

MR.  WOODS  :     Oh,  to  a  very  strong  violence. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:    Have  they  committed  murder? 

MR.  WOODS  :  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  that  is  being  brought  out  now.  As  I 
remember  it  last  night  in  the  newspaper  article  there  were  three  indict- 
ments for  murder  in  the  first  degree. 

No  Limit  to  Intimidation 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  There  is  no  limit  then  to  what  degree 
they  will  go  to  intimidate  the  so-called  scabs? 

MR.  WOODS  :  No.  Now,  there  was  a  case  that  was  noticed  a  good 
deal  in  the  newspapers  a  while  ago  of  an  innocent  man  by  the  name  of 
Straus,  who  was  shot  and  killed  on  the  east  side.  The  Dopey  Benny 
gang  was  employed  by  the  strikers  and  some  other  gangsters  were 
employed  by  the  employers ;  I  can  not  remember  which  particular  gang  it 
was.  One  of  the  Dopey  Benny  gang  had  been  killed  by  one  of  the  other 
gang. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:     Competing  gangs? 

MR.  WOODS:  Yes;  one  gang  employed  by  one  side,  and  one  gang 
by  the  other  side.  I  may  have  things  a  little  twisted  here,  but  the  gang 
that  killed  the  member  of  the  other  gang  was  holding  a  ball,  and  the 
other  gang  came  up  to  get  revenge  for  the  killing,  and  the  man  that 
they  tried  to  shoot  jumped  behind  this  perfectly  innocent  citizen,  Straus, 
and  Straus  was  killed. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  Now,  are  the  so-called  gangs  of  gunmen 
confined  to  the  east  side  of  New  York,  or  are  there  other  gangs  in  other 
parts  of  the  city? 

MR.  WOODS  :    There  are  gangs  in  other  parts  of  the  city. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  And  as  a  result  of  your  experience 
you  have  found  that  employers  are  guilty  of  resorting  to  the  methods  you 
condemn,  and  likewise  the  labor  unions  have  resorted  to  the  methods  that 
you  condemn? 

MR.  WOODS:  Yes,  sir;  that  there  were  two  points  that  ought  to  be 
considered  in  connection  with  that;  so  far  we  have  not  found  the  direct 
employment  of  gunmen  except  by  strikers. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  The  employment  by  employers  has  been 
indirect? 

MR.  WOODS  :  The  employment  by  employers  has  been  indirect,  through 
private  detective  agencies,  and  we  have  found  far  more  employment  of 
gunmen  by  strikers  than  by  employers. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  In  how  far  have  your  investigations 
warranted  this  statement  that  appears  following: 


INDUSTRIAL  WARFARE  155 


"Several  of  the  indictments  mention  assaults  upon  members  of  the 
union,  and  in  this  connection  District  Attorney  Perkins  said  last  night 
that  the  reign  of  lawlessness  was  caused  by  union  leaders  who  wished 
to  perpetuate  themselves  in  power,  who  hired  assassins  to  assault  con- 
tenders in  their  own  union  for  their  places,  and  who  used  offices  to 
extort  blackmail  under  threats  from  employers. 

"Seven  men  are  indicted  for  assault  in  a  riot  for  control  of  a  union. 
Four  men  are  indicted  for  hiring  Dopey  Benny's  band  to  go  to  a  non- 
union factory  and  'rough  house'  the  employes  as  they  left,  and  'wreck' 
the  plant.  A  dozen  workers  were  wounded  in  that  fight. 

"Six  union  men  are  accused  of  extortion  and  assault  in  using  violence 
to  collect  a  fine  of  $100  upon  an  employer.  Four  others  are  accused 
of  hiring  the  Dopey  Benny  band  to  shoot  up  a  non-union  factory.  Many 
shots  were  fired,  the  factory  suffered  a  damage  of  $1,000,  and  several 
persons  were  injured.  Other  indictments  mention  cases  where  the  band 
was  employed  by  union  leaders  to  attack  non-union  workers,  to  wreck 
factories,  and  even  to  assault  men  who  opposed  the  leaders." 

Does  your  investigation  substantiate  those  statements  here? 

MR.  WOODS:  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  general  line  of  things  that  we 
found.  All  that  sort  of  thing. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  So  that  this  is  not  mere  newspaper  exag- 
geration, to  your  knowledge? 

MR.  WOODS:    No,  sir. 

Unions  Try  to  Tell  State  Governor  What  To  Do 

Testimony  of  Mrs.  Mary  ("Mother")  Jones,  before  the 
Industrial  Relations  Commission,  May  14,  1915.  Pages  10,643 
and  10,644  of  testimony.  "We  simply  got  our  guns  and  ammuni- 
tion *  *  *  and  the  fight  began.") 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  From  what  you  have  explained,  Mother 
Jones,  it  is  evident  that  some  explanation  is  needed.  There  appears  in 
the  record  of  the  congressional  committee,  a  copy  of  which  I  have  here, 
setting  forth  a  hearing  before  a  sub-committee  of  the  Committee  on  Mines 
and  Mining  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  a  statement  attributed  to 
you,  which  evidently  is  a  mistake,  and  does  you  a  grave  injustice,  and  I 
think  you  should  be  afforded  an  opportunity  at  this  hearing  for  the  pur- 
poses of  our  record  to  correct  it. 

Among  other  things  you  are  alleged  to  have  said,  speaking,  I  think, 
of  some  labor  trouble  in  West  Virginia: 

"We  told  him  we  lived  in  America  beneath  the  flag  for  which  our 
fathers  fought;  that  we  lived  in  the  United  States,  and  we  had  a  right 
and  had  a  ground  to  fight  on;  and  we  asked  the  governor  to  abolish 
the  Baldwin  guards.  That  was  the  chief  thing  I  was  after,  and  I  tell 
you  the  truth,  because  I  knew  when  we  cleaned  them  out  other  things 
would  come  with  it. 

"So  I  said  in  the  article  we  will  give  the  governor  until  eight  o'clock 
to-morrow  evening  to  get  rid  of  the  Baldwin  guards,  and  if  he  don't 
do  business  we  will  do  business.  I  called  the  committee,  and  I  said,  'Here, 
take  this  document  and  go  into  the  governor's  office  and  present  it  to  him. 


156  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Now,  don't  get  on  your  knees;  you  don't  need  to  get  on  your  knees; 
we  have  no  kings  in  America;  stand  on  both  feet,  with  your  heads  erect 
and  present  that  document  to  the  governor.'  And  they  said,  'Will  we 
wait  ?'  I  said,  'No,  don't  wait,  and  don't  say,  "Your  honor," '  said  I, 
because  few  of  these  fellows  have  any  honor  and  don't  know  what  it  is. 

"When  we  adjourned  the  meeting  and  saw  we  were  not  going  to 
get  any  help,  I  said,  'We  will  protect  ourselves  and  buy  every  gun  in 
Charleston.'  There  was  not  a  gun  left  in  Charleston ;  and  we  did  it  openly, 
no  underhanded  business  about  it,  for  I  don't  believe  in  it  at  all.  We 
simply  got  our  guns  and  ammunition  and  walked  down  to  the  camps, 
and  the  fight  began." 

Now,  as  one  who  believes  in  law  and  order  and  obeying  the  law, 
there  must  be  some  mistake,  or  you  were  misquoted,  and  this  is  an 
opportunity  for  you  to  correct  it. 

MOTHER  JONES:  I  am  going  to  tell  you  about  that.  I  made  that 
speech,  not  in  Trinidad,  but  on  the  steps  of  the  state  house  in  Charleston. 
The  strike  was  not  on  very  long — three  or  four  months,  I  think  three 
months — and  I  did  so,  and  the  governor  stood  there,  and  the  whole  state 
house  administration  was  there.  When  I  said,  "We  demand  of  the  gov- 
ernor to  abolish  the  Baldwin  guards,"  I  did  so;  I  don't  deny  it. 

Former  Public  Official  Describes  Violence 

(From  an  article  by  Joseph  M.  Brown,  former  governor  of 
Georgia,  reprinted  in  the  La  Grange,  Georgia,  Reporter,  July 
16,  1920). 

In  1912,  the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Street  and  Electric  Railway 
Employes  of  America,  organized  the  street  car  employes  of  Augusta.  On 
September  23d  that  year  they  went  on  a  strike  which  lasted  till  October 
ipth. 

During  this  strike,  two  loyal  employes  were  murdered  one  night  at 
the  end  of  their  run  in  the  outskirts  of  the  city.  Besides  these,  from 
fifteen  to  eighteen  men,  mostly  loyal  employes  were  either  shot  or  brutally 
beaten  and  many  more  people,  some  of  them  passengers,  were  injured  by 
flying  missiles. 

On  call  of  the  Mayor  of  Augusta,  I  as  Governor,  ordered  out  the 
local  military  to  protect  the  city  from  rioting  strikers.  Three  citizens 
were  killed  by  the  military  while  trying  to  ride  through  the  cordon  around 
the  car  barn  despite  the  command  to  halt.  One  of  these  was  a  strike 
sympathizer  who  fired  at  the  captain  and  was  then  instantly  shot  dead  by 
the  sentries.  By  the  strike  the  street  car  company  suffered  considerable 
property  loss,  such  as  damage  to  cars,  to  overhead  lines,  to  tracks  and 
switches  and  to  its  buildings. 

Since  I  wrote  the  above  words  I  have  received  a  letter  from  a 
prominent  citizen  who  was  in  Augusta  during  the  entire  period  of  the 
strike.  From  him  I  learn  that  women  and  children  were  attacked;  one 
woman  was  shot ;  several  non-union  men  were  known  to  have  been  killed, 
and  several  non-union  men  disappeared  in  riots  and  have  never  been  heard 
of  since.  An  eight-year-old  boy  was  driven  from  school  and  his  father's 
family  had  to  be  protected  by  guards.  The  Mayor,  who  asked  for  the 


INDUSTRIAL  WARFARE  157 


military  for  enforcing  law  and  order,  found  it  necessary  to  have  guards 
placed  around  his  home  for  protection  to  himself  and  family. 

Are  Employers  Responsible  for  Violence? 

(From  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commis- 
sion, July  21  and  July  22,  1914,  of  Mr.  Dudley  Taylor,  general 
counsel  for  the  Employers  Association  of  Chicago.  Picketing 
and  violence  are  discussed  by  Mr.  Taylor.) 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  You  also  made  the  statement  that  your 
association  furnished  guards  in  labor  troubles. 

MR.  TAYLOR:    Yes,  sir. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  Have  you  read  Robert  Hunter's  work 
on  labor  troubles? 

MR.  TAYLOR:    No. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  He  holds  employers  responsible  for  vio- 
lence in  labor  troubles  on  the  ground  that  they  employ  detectives  and  gun- 
men, and  these  detectives  go  into  the  labor  unions  as  spotters  and  incite 
violence,  and  compel  the  employer  to  increase  his  force  of  guards,  and 
that  increases  business  for  the  detective  agencies  and  that  if  the  employ- 
ers would  cease  to  employ  guards  it  would  wipe  out  violence  in  labor 
troubles;  what  is  your  view  as  to  that? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  He  certainly  greatly  overstates  or  over-exaggerates. 
Our  system  is  to  have  the  addresses  of  a  number  of  guards  who  are 
available  when  necessity  arises.  We  send  one  guard  or  two  guards,  or 
possibly  three  or  four,  depending  on  the  number  of  employes  and  their 
routes  in  going  to  and  from  their  homes.  We  send  them  to  the  plant, 
and  one  guard  probably  takes  a  half  dozen  men  under  his  charge  and 
escorts  them  from  the  plant  to  the  street  car  or  the  elevator,  and  some 
of  them  in  their  homes.  I  can  recall  only  one  case  in  the  last  ten  years 
of  my  association  where  it  is  claimed  or  charged  that  a  guard  had 
been  guilty  of  any  violence  or  wrongdoing.  My  whole  experience 
has  been  that  the  guards  do  not  foment  any  trouble :  they  are  not  allowed 
to  do  anything  of  the  sort;  there  has  never  been  anything  of  that  sort. 
Now,  it  might  be  that  in  mining  districts  there  has  been  something  of 
that  kind;  I  don't  know,  but  I  am  speaking  of  the  city  of  Chicago.  You 
will  find  that  in  the  strikes  here  where  guards  have  been  sent  out,  one, 
two,  or  three  guards  as  the  case  may  be,  that  the  workmen  would  not  go 
to  and  from  the  plant  without  guards,  and  that  the  guards  do  not  make 
trouble  and  there  is  no  trouble  so  far  as  they  are  concerned.  There  is 
only  one  case  of  trouble  being  made  by  a  guard  that  I  remember. 

(From  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commis- 
sion, July  23,  1914,  of  Mr.  John  M.  Glenn,  secretary  of  the 
Illinois  Manufacturers'  Association.  Page  3303  of  the  record. 
Mr.  Glenn  shows  the  necessity  employers  are  under  of  having 
"guards"  in  time  of  strike.) 

I  have  seen  the  question  raised  here  as  to  whether  it  ever  did  partici- 
pate in  violence.  I  don't  know.  My  experience  has  been  a  little  broad 


158  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

as  far  as  this  community  is  concerned.  I  was  in  the  newspaper  business 
here  for  a  long  while.  I  have  been  in  a  great  many  strikes;  I  have  seen 
a  great  deal  of  violence  one  way  and  another;  I  had  more  or  less  to  do 
with  the  labor  troubles  that  took  place  in  1886  here,  and  in  1894,  and 
other  times  and  I  don't  see  how  labor  organizations  the  way  they  are 
constituted,  can  maintain  their  position  without  force,  and  I  was  surprised 
to  see  the  question  raised  here  that  it  did  not  use  force.  The  employer— 
I  don't  see  any  necessity  for  his  guarding  his  property  if  there  is  not 
violence.  The  first  act  of  violence  is  in  the  strike.  They  start  the 
strike.  I  tried  to  put  some  men  to  work  and  the  labor  organization  tries 
to  stop  me.  Then  there  is  naturally  a  conflict,  and  the  kettle  calls  the 
pot  black  and  vice  versa,  and  there  they  go. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  You  heard  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Fitz- 
patrick? 

MR.  GLENN:    Yes,  sir. 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  And  he  takes  the  ground  that  offensive 
acts  of  violence  were  initiated  by  the  employers  and  of  the  workers  en- 
gaged in  violence  it  was  defensive.  What  is  your  opinion  on  that  score? 

MR.  GLENN  :  How  could  that  be  ?  How  could  I  take  the  initiative  ? 
Suppose  I  am  running  a  plant  and  my  men  have  struck  why  should  I 
introduce  violence  in  the  situation?  What  I  am  trying  to  do  is  run  the 
plant.  I  try  to  get  some  other  men  if  the  old  men  won't  come  back.  The 
first  act  of  violence  if  the  employer  is  honest  and  the  unions  are  fair — 
the  first  act  of  violence  must  come  from  the  men  who  go  out  whether 
organized  or  not  organized. 

Why  "Guards"  Are  Employed 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Earl  Constantine,  then  manager  of 
the  Employers  Association  of  Washington,  before  the  Industrial 
Relations  Commission,  August  6,  1914.  Lack  of  protection  by 
civil  authorities,  is  said  to  be  the  chief  cause  for  employment  of 
private  detectives  during  labor  troubles.) 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Referring  to  the  question  of  private  detectives 
during  the  time  of  labor  trouble,  what  is  your  opinion  on  that  subject, 
if  you  have  one,  and  what  are  the  reasons  back  of  it? 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:  I  believe  when  a  plant,  or  manufacturer,  or  em- 
ployer is  facing  a  condition  where  there  is  violence,  or  destruction  of 
property  either  actually  going  on  or  distinctly  promised  and  approaching, 
or  any  danger  of  life  and  limb,  that  the  employer  is  fully  entitled  to 
protection,  even  if  it  means  doubling  of  the  police  force.  I  would  not 
think  violence  should  be  countenanced  on  the  part  of  the  individual  or 
on  the  part  of  an  organization  any  more  than  an  individual. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  What  would  you  say  with  reference  to  the  right 
of  an  employer  to  hire  private  detectives? 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:  I  don't  think  an  employer  would  ever  seek  or 
think  of  suggesting  the  employment  of  private  detectives  if  given  full 
protection  on  the  part  of  the  public  authorities. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     From  your  investigation  of  that   subject,   do  you 


INDUSTRIAL  WARFARE  159 


believe  generally  in  the  United  States  the  employer  does  hire  private 
detectives  in  labor  disputes  like  strikes? 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:  I  suppose  there  are  places  in  the  country  where 
that  is  attempted  more  or  less.  In  the  State  of  Washington  it  is  not 
countenanced. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     It  is  not  countenanced? 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:     No,  sir;  it  is  rather  rare,  I  would  put  it. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  The  mayor,  I  think,  testified  this  morning  it  had 
been  done  here. 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:  As  I  gather  from  the  testimony  of  the  mayor, 
he  was  referring  to  the  Ballard  strike  here  in  the  city,  where  the  city 
is  said  to  have  not  offered  extra  protection  and  the  sheriff  of  the  county 
swore  in  deputies  and  sent  them  out,  and  in  some  cases  deputized  em- 
ployes of  the  employer. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Take  that  case  and  the  other  cases  which  you  say 
have  existed  in  this  country,  do  you  believe  in  the  principle  of  the  employ- 
ment by  the  employer  of  private  guards  or  private  detectives,  or  what- 
ever you  may  call  them,  in  time  of  strike  and  lockout? 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:  I  think  that  basically  it  is  not  a  good  principle, 
but  I  think  that  the  fact  is  that  generally  the  employer  is  not  in  position 
to  get  the  protection  he  is  entitled  to  and  that  creates  a  condition  where 
for  the  protection  of  life,  as  much  as  for  the  protection  of  property, 
he  should  have  the  right  to  take  and  deputize  employes,  or  get  them 
deputized,  rather,  to  guard  his  plant. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  It  has  been  said  by  some  that  this  is  the  only 
country  among  civilized  nations  where  such  a  condition  is  permitted; 
that  in  the  old  countries  of  Europe — France,  Germany,  England,  and 
the  like — private  guards  are  not  permitted  at  all. 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:  That  is  probably  true,  because  the  enforcement 
of  law  is  more  observed. 

MR.  THOMPSON:    Would  that  be  your  reason  for  the  difference? 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:  I  believe  so.  I  happen  to  have  lived  in -Europe 
and  know  about  something  of  that. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Is  that  all  the  reason  you  care  to  give,  or  is  there 
anything  else? 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:     I  think  that  is  sufficient. 

Civil  Authorities  Should  Enforce  Laws 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  J.  V.  Paterson,  president  of  the 
Seattle  Construction  and  Drydock  Company,  before  the  Indus- 
trial Relations  Commission,  August  13,  1914.  Page  4314  of  the 
record.  The  testimony  of  Mr.  Paterson  supports  the  position 
taken  by  Mr.  Constantine.) 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  How  do  you  personally — that  is,  apart  from  your 
association,  how  do  you  personally  view  the  employment  of  private 
guards  by  employers  in  times  of  trouble? 

MR.  PATERSON  :     As  a  disgrace  to  the  community. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :    That  is,  you  think  it  should  not  be  necessary? 

MR.  PATERSON:    Yes,  sir. 


160  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

MR.  THOMPSON:    Do  you  think  it  necessary  generally? 

MR.  PATERSON  :     It   isn't  necessary   if   the   city   authorities   act. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Some  people  say  that  this  is  an  institution  peculiar 
to  this  country;  that  in  the  other  countries  of  western  civilized  lands  that 
that  is  not  done. 

MR.  PATERSON:    I  am  sorry  to  say  that  is  true. 

MR.. THOMPSON:  What  is  your  reason  for  that?  What  is  the  cause 
of  that  difference? 

MR.  PATERSON  :  Well,  I  have  personally  given  this  matter  some 
attention,  and  every  person  who  gets  into  office  here,  I  don't  say  every 
person,  there  may  be  an  occasional  exception — has  hopes  of  a  further 
office,  an  office  a  little  higher,  and  he  has  been  taught  by  the  noise  the 
union  creates,  that  the  unions  have  a  tremendous  power  in  the  elections, 
and  accordingly  he  plays  to  the  unions.  We  have  some  examples  here  in 
town. 


UNLAWFUL  ACTS  CONDONED  BY  UNIONS  161 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Unlawful  Acts  Condoned  by  Unions 

In  many  cases,  of  course,  violence  which  takes  place  during 
strikes  is  the  result  of  acts  by  irresponsible  individuals.  While 
the  closed  shop  unions  may  cause  disputes  which  otherwise  would 
not  exist,  still  we  cannot  hold  them  responsible  for  the  acts  of 
individuals. 

The  case  is  different,  however,  if,  by  subsequent  acts,  they 
show  or  express  approval  of  acts  of  force.  Nor  is  it  sufficient  to 
say,  as  has  been  said,  "Our  acts  are  no  different  than  that  of  a 
church  in  taking  back  to  its  breast  a  repentant  sinner."  What 
church  takes  back  a  sinner  and  then  elevates  him  almost  at  once  <y 
to  high  position? 

Press  dispatches  state  that  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  have  announced  that  it  will  support  to  the  utmost 
twenty-four  men,  most  of  them  members  of  the  union,  accused  of 
nurder  in  West  Virginia.  It  is  recalled,  that  eleven  Arkansas 
nembers  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  pleaded  guilty  to  various 
offenses  against  state  and  national  laws.  The  union  paid  the  fines 
>f  all  these  men  and  rewarded  most  of  them  by  elections  or 
ippointments  to  union  offices. 

The  Menace  to  Public  Order 

We  have  been  informed  on  the  highest  possible  authority  that 
everal  times  the  organized  employes  in  Washington,  D.  C,  have 
hreatened  to  go  on  strike  and  tie  up  every  public  utility  in  the 
)istrict,  even  the  water  supply  for  the  450,000  people.  So  far 
hey  have  simply  "threatened,"  but  the  issue  raised  in  the  Boston 
'olice  Strike,  as  to  the  right  of  government  employes  to  strike 
nd  subject  government  business  to  the  demands  of  any  group, 
>  one  which  must  be  carefully  considered. 

(Testimony  of  Anton  Johannsen,  formerly  business  agent  for 
le  Almagated  Wood  Workers  and  State  Organizers  of  the 
alifornia  Building  Trades  Council,  then  General  Organizer  for 
le  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  before  the  Industrial 
elations  Commission,  May  14,  1915.  Page  10672  of  testimony. 
Ir.  Johannsen  here  says  that  "every  man"  that  was  convicted  of 
ic  dynamite  outrages  was  re-elected.  Of  the  thirty-eight  men 
mvicted  at  least  twenty-one  have  since  held  union  offices.) 


OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 


I  am  glad  to  say  that  every  union  of  ironworkers  had  sufficient  socia 
courage  and  loyalty  to  reelect  every  man  that  was  convicted.  Wrier 
they  went  to  prison  they  took  care  of  the  families,  and  those  that  are  ir 
prison  now,  including  old  lady  McNamara.  When  they  went  to  prisor 
the  first  thing  we  did  in  our  state  convention  in  Los  Angeles  we  sus- 
pended all  rules  and  order  of  business,  and  took  up  the  first  thing,  th< 
reelection  of  general  secretary  and  treasurer,  and  executive  board  mem 
bers,  and  elected  Tveitmoe  and  Clancey  by  acclamation,  and  it  was  th< 
first  time  this  proceeding  ever  took  place  in  our  convention. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  James  H.  Maurer,  president  o: 
the  Pennsylvania  Federation  of  Labor,  before  the  Industrial  Rela 
tions  Commission,  June  27,  1914.  Page  2965  of  the  record.  Th< 
"Brindeir  of  years  ago  honored  by  unions  after  his  release  fron 
prison.  ) 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK:  Then  how  do  you  explain  the  pe 
culiar  phenomenon  that  when  Sam  Parks,  who  was  an  avowed  grafter 
came  out  of  jail  he'  was  made  the  marshal  of  a  Labor  Day  parade  an< 
greeted  as  a  great  hero? 

MR.  MAURER  :  Well,  the  New  York  movement  and  the  Chicago  move 
ment  and  the  Frisco  movement  are  tailenders,  if  you  will  pardon  me  —  — 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK  :     Well,  we  deserve  it  all  right. 

MR.  MAURER:  Are  part  of  the  tail  end  of  the  old  movement.  W 
have  men  in  this  state  who  are  of  the  old  school,  and  it  is  not  fair  fr 
judge  the  whole  labor  movement  by  the  shortcomings  of  some'  renegade 
in  it.  When  you  speak  of  Parks,  why,  he  of  course,  was  held  up  as 
martyr;  just  the  same  as  most  any  other  great  question;  the  great  mas 
are  poorly  informed  as  a  rule.  And  then  again,  the  fact  that  he  ma; 
have  been  made  marshal,  I  don't  know  the  details,  but  it  is  easy  to  do  i 
if  a  committee  like  himself  in  control  of  the  demonstration  just  simpl; 
says  so  and  the  rank  and  file  may  parade  along  and  won't  even  know  wh 
is  up  front.  But  I  would  not  think  for  a  minute  of  trying  to  leave  th 
impression  that  the  rank  and  file  at  this  age  has  any  sentiment  at  all  fo 
such  people.  There  are,  however,  conditions  when  men  we  know  hav 
been  persecuted  and,  we  believe  innocent,  and  sometimes  even  though  w 
believe  they  are  guilty,  we  believe  their  guilt  was  justified  and  we  wi 
fight  for  them. 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  WEINSTOCK  :  Is  this  true,  Mr.  Maurer,  that  whil 
on  the  one  hand  organized  labor  in  its  published  statements  takes  th 
ground  that  it  stands  up  for  law  and  order  and  that  it  is  opposed  t 
violence  in  labor  troubles;  that  when  members  of  organised  labor  comm 
violence,  organised  labor,  as  a  rule,  stands  behind  them,  on  the  groun 
that  they  committed  this  violence  in  the  interest  of  labor  and,  therefor 
right  or  wrong,  labor  must  stand  behind  them? 

MR.  MAURER:     Yes;  I  think  that  is  right,  too. 

Facts  Set  Forth  in  Supreme  Court  Decision 

(The  following  sentences  from  the  decision  of  the  Unite 
States  Supreme  Court,  January  3,  1921,  in  the  case  of  the  Duple 
Printing  Company  vs.  Deering,  is  an  official  arraignment  of  close 


UNLAWFUL  ACTS  CONDONED  BY  UNIONS  163 

shop  tactics.  The  International  Association  of  Machinists  resorted 
to  a  country-wide  boycott  to  force  the  Duplex  Company  to  main- 
tain a  closed  shop.  Practically  every  closed  shop  paper  and  leader 
in  the  country  has  denounced  the  decision  of  the  Court,  which 
said  the  Clayton  Act  did  not  give  legal  sanction  to  such  perform- 
ances.) 

The  acts  complained  of  made  up  the  details  of  an  elaborate  program 
adopted  and  carried  out  by  defendants  and  their  organizations  in  and 
about  the  City  of  New  York  as  part  of  a  country-wide  program ( adopted 
by  the  International  Association,  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  a  boycott 
of  complainant's  product.  The  acts  embraced  the  following,  with  others: 
warning  customers  that  it  would  be  better  for  them  not  to  purchase,  or 
having  purchased  not  to  install,  presses  made  by  complainant,  and  threaten- 
ing them  with  loss  should  they  do  so;  threatening  customers  with  sym- 
pathetic strikes  in  other  trades ;  notifying  a  trucking  company  usually 
employed  by  crstomers  to  haul  the  presses,  not  to  do  so,  and  threatening 
it  with  trouble  if  it  should;  inciting  employes  of  the  trucking  company, 
and  other  men  employed  by  customers  of  complainant,  to  strike  against 
their  respective  employers  in  order  to  interfere  with  the  hauling  and 
installation  of  presses,  and  thus  bring  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  custo- 
mers; notifying  repair  shops  not  to  do  repair  work  on  Duplex  presses; 
coercing  union  men  by  threatening  them  with  loss  of  union  cards  and 
with  being  blacklisted  as  "scabs"  if  they  assisted  in  installing  the  presses; 
threatening  an  exposition  company  with  a  strike  if  it  permitted  com- 
plainant's presses  to  be  exhibited;  and  resorting  to  a  variety  of  other 
modes  of  preventing  the  sale  of  presses  of  complainant's  manufacture  in 
or  about  New  York  City,  and  delivery  of  them  in  interstate  commerce, 
such  as  injuring  and  threatening  to  injure  complainant's  customers  and 
prospective  customers,  and  persons  concerned  in  hauling,  handling,  or 
installing  the  presses.  In  some  cases  the  threats  were  undisguised,  in 
other  cases  polite  in  form  but  none  the  less  sinister  in  purpose  and 
effect.  All  the  judges  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  concurred  in  the 
view  that  defendants'  conduct  consisted  essentially  of  efforts  to  render 
it  impossible  for  complainant  to  carry  on  any  commerce  in  printing 
presses  between  Michigan  and  New  York. 

.  "Fidelity"  and  "Manslaughter" 

(The  following  is  from  the  Little  Rock  New  Sky  Line  of 
February  19,  1921.) 

Al  Shrum,  a  member  of  the  Electrical  Workers'  Union  No.  59  of 
Dallas,  was  convicted  of  manslaughter  in  connection  with  the  killing  of 
an  employe  of  the  Texas  Light  &  Power  Company  during  their  strike 
and  sentenced  to  three  years'  imprisonment.  He  was  pardoned  by  Gov- 
ernor Hobby  recently. 

In  reporting  a  reception  given  him  by  his  union,  we  quote  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph  from  The  Craftsman,  the  Dallas  labor  paper: 

"When  it  comes  to  entertaining,  we  tip  our  hat  to  Electrical  Workers' 


164  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Union  No.  59  of  Dallas,  for  we  are  frank  to  say  that  one  of  the  most 
enjoyable  evenings  we  ever  spent  was  as  a  guest  of  these  'boys'  Monday 
night  at  a  'smoker'  given  in  their  hall  in  Labor  Temple  IN  HONOR  of 
the  return  home  of  BRO.  AL  SHRUM,  who  has  been  'absent'  from  the 
city  for  several  months  BECAUSE  OF  HIS  LOYALTY  TO  THE 
LOCAL  AND  HIS  FIDELITY  TO  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  COL- 
LECTIVE BARGAINING." 

Who  Will  Defend  These  Practices? 

Governor  Kilby  of  Alabama  was  accepted  by  both  operators 
and  United  Mine  Workers  as  an  arbitrator  whose  decision  they 
would  accept,  in  the  Alabama  coal  strike.  His  findings  were 
announced  March  19,  1921.  Among  other  things  he  said: 

"This  strike,  being  called  without  just  cause  or  for  the  purpose  oi 
remedying  any  grievance,  and  in  deliberate  violation  of  an  agreement,  was 
'illegal  and  immoral' !  It  proves  beyond  cavil  that  the  written  contract  o, 
obligation  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  cannot  be  relied  on 
and  that  recognition  would  give  no  assurance  of  industrial  peace. 

"The  United  Mine  Workers  has  counselled  and  directed  the  violatioi 
of  the  laws  of  Alabama." 

A  news  item  in  the  Chicago  Tribune  of  May  n,  1921,  reads 

"A  jury  in  Judge  Thomas  Taylor's  court  yesterday  found  Edwin  E 
Graves  of  Boston,  international  vice-president  of  the  Upholsterers'  unior 
and  Roy  F.  Hall,  business  agent  of  Chicago  local  No.  in,  guilty  in  con 
spiracy  charges.  *  *  * 

The  indictments  grew  out  of  violence  and  destruction  of  propert 
which  marked  the  upholsterers'  strike  in  Chicago  more  than  a  yea 
ago.  *  *  * 

"For  more  than  a  year  Graves  fought  extradition,  taking  the  case  u 
to'  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts.  He  had  come  from  Boston  earl 
in  the  strike  and  directed  its  activities. 

"Samuel  Fisher,  principal  witness  for  the  state,  told  a  story  of  havir 
been  hired  by  Graves  and  Hall  to  carry  on  a  campaign  of  terror  1 
slugging  employes  and  employers  in  the  upholstery  industry.  He  quote 
his  prices  for  broken  noses,  arms>  and  heads  as  ranging  from  $10.  to  $100 


MONOPOLY  ASPECTS  OF  CLOSED  SHOP  UNIONISM  165 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Monopoly  Aspects  of  Closed  Shop  Unionism 

In  the  closed  shop  the  union  principle  is  extended  to  include 
a  monopoly.  As  Ernest  F.  Lloyd  in  his  monograph  on  "The 
Closed  Union  Shop,  the  Open  Shop"  declares :  "In  such  a  shop  a 
worker  refusing  or  refused  membership  in  the  union  of  his  trade 
must  by  that  fact  be  refused  employment  or  be  discharged  by  an 
employer.  A  power  to  thus  exclude  is  in  industry  a  power  to 
unreasonably  restrain  trade.  Hence  it  is  conceded  to  be  contrary 
to  public  policy  and  agreements  to  effect  it  are  legally  non-enforce- 
able." He  further  says :  "If  a  group  can  cause  the  exclusion  of 
others,  or  can  restrict  them  or  its  own  members  in  the  exercise 
of  their  trade  functions,  it  thereby  makes  it  possible  to  *  *  * 
create,  in  other  words  an  artificial  scarcity."  The  public  itself 
must  decide  whether  it  will  sanction  by  its  sympathy  and  sup- 
port this  effort  to  establish  a  monopoly  in  the  labor  market. 

As  pointed  out  before  these  monopolistic  organizations  are 
not  financially  responsible  for  violations  of  contracts  duly  made, 
or  for  damages  caused  during  labor  disputes.  They  have  many 
times,  when  suit  for  damages  was  brought,  simply  given  the 
answer  that  as  they  have  not  chosen  to  incorporate  they  cannot 
be  held  legally  responsible  for  damages  arising  from  their  actions. 

Such  a  condition  is  conducive  neither  to  efficiency  nor  har- 
mony in  industry,  two  attributes  with  which  the  public  is  vitally 
concerned.  About  one  hundred  years  ago  corporations,  associ- 
ations of  individuals  for  purposes  of  business,  began  to  assume 
prominence.  Since  1870  both  states  and  national  governments 
have  placed  restrictions  upon  these  associations,  restrictions 
designed  to  benefit  the  members  or  stockholders,  other  associ- 
ations, and  the  general  public.  Their  manner  of  organization 
and  methods  of  business  are  carefully  regulated  by  law.  Yet  the 
labor  organizations  which  sponsor  the  closed  shop  bitterly  oppose 
any  and  all  efforts  to  regulate  their  monopoly  and  actions,although 
they  have  millions  of  members  and  millions  of  dollars,  their  acts 
affecting  the  general  public  for  good  or  ill  as  much  certainly  as 
any  business  aggregation  has  ever  done  or  has  ever  threatened  to 
do.  If  the  public  has  a  right  to  regulate  business  and  make  it 
conform  to  certain  standards,  has  it  not  the  same  right  to  regulate 
combinations  of  labor  ? 


i66  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Closed  Shop  Tactics 

The  Minnesota  Daily  Star,  Non-Partisan  League  and  unioi 
labor  daily,  reports  that  the  St.  Paul  Trades  and  Labor  Assembl; 
is  going  to  take  a  census  of  all  St.  Paul  business  and  professiona 
men  on  the  open  shop  issue.  The  Star,  which  is  published  b; 
closed  shop  supporters,  says:  "By  definitely  estabishing  th 
position  of  these  firms  and  organizations,  the  public  can  b 
informed  with  whom  to  deal." 

According  to  the  Seattle  Union  Record  of  December  16,  IQ2C 
the  retail  clerks  of  that  city  want  every  patron  of  a  store  or  sho 
to  demand  that  the  clerk  waiting  on  him  show  his  union  member 
ship  card. 

In  order  to  combat  the  open  shop  the  Trades  and  Labo 
Assembly  of  St.  Paul  instructed  its  memlbers  to  make  absolute! 
no  Christmas  purchases  in  the  loop  district  during  the  holida 
season  except  positive  necessities.  All  of  the  big  retail  stores  bt 
two  were  included. 

Candy  Workers'  Local  Union  No.  156,  Seattle,  tried  t 
induce  every  eater  of  Christmas  candy  to  insist  that  the  unio 
label  be  on  every  box  purchased  during  the  holiday  season. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  said  to  be  preparin 
to  start  a  nation-wide  campaign  to  organize  office  help.  Commei 
cial  stenographers,  bookkeepers  and  clerks  are  to  be  organize 
into  the  "Labor  Defense  League." 

The  Epworth  League  of  Kansas  has  been  officially  declare 
"unfair"  to  union  labor. 

How  Far  Would  They  Go? 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Edward  L.  Doyle,  secretary-trea; 
urer,  United  Mine  Workers,  Denver  District,  before  the  Indu; 
trial  Relations  Commission,  December  14,  1914.  Page  6971  c 
the  record.  Italics  ours.) 

MR.  DOYLE:  An  employer  has  a  right  to  employ  anyone  he  se* 
fit.  Your  question  being  a  broad  and  general  one,  I  would  ask  tl 
privilege  of  making  a  statement  in  connection  therewith.  The  assumptk 
that  a  man  should  have  the  right  to  work,  as  I  understand  your  questio 
in  any  particular  industry,  simply  because  he  had  been  so  employed  1 
the  operator  of  that  industry,  without  being  compelled  to  join  a  lab 
organization  is  considered,  talked  of  as  a  right.  It  is  only  considered  up< 
the  surface,  and  they  never  go  below  the  surface  to  discuss  that  and  ha 
it  out  whether  it  is  a  right  or  a  wrong.  And  I  might  say  here  th 
anyone  that  goes  into  an  industry  to  work,  if  there  is  an  organization 


MONOPOLY  ASPECTS  OF  CLOSED  SHOP  UNIONISM  167 

that  industry,  he  should  be  compelled  to  become  a  member  of  that  organ- 
isation. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  E.  B.  Ault,  editor  of  the  Seattle 
Union  Record,  official  organ  of  the  Central  Labor  Council,  before 
the  Industrial  Relations  Commission.  August  12,  1914.) 

ACTING  CHAIRMAN  COMMONS:  So  that,  then,  you  would  have  the 
Government  require  employers  to  hire  union  men? 

MR.  AULT:  Well,  that  is  a  hard  question.  I  think  that  it  is  a  rea- 
sonable proposition  that  employers  should  be  required  to  hire  union-  men. 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Will  you  be  in  favor  of  any  form  of  coercion  to 
compel  third  parties,  not  union  people,  but  the  public  generally,  to  help 
in  the  boycott?  Would  you  have  the  plumber  refuse  to  repair  the  plumb- 
ing in  the  house  of  a  man  that  bought  good  that  were  unfair? 

MR.  AULT:    Yes,  sir. 

Said  John  Mitchell,  president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
in  1903 : 

"With  the  rapid  extension  of  trade  unions,  the  tendency  is  toward 
growth  of  compulsory  membership  in  them,  and  the  time  will  doubtless 
come  when  this  inclusion  will  become  as  general  and  will  become  as 
little  of  a  grievance  as  the  compulsory  attendance  at  school." 

The  Views  of  Economists 

(From  "Modern  Economic  Problem,"  Volume  II,  by  Dr. 
Frank  A.  Fetter,  Professor  of  Economics,  Princeton  University. 
Pages  309-312.  Dr.  Fetter  explains  the  methods  by  which  unions 
apparently  raise  wages.) 

The  action  of  organized  labor  is  not,  however,  limited  to  the  com- 
petitive field,  above  discussed.  Wages  in  particular  industries  may,  by 
the  action  of  trade  unions  be  raised  and  maintained  above  a  true  com- 
petitive rate.  This  of  course  can  be  done  only  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  of  the  service — value  to  the  consumer  and  of  service — price  in 
the  employment-market.  The  supply  of  labor  is  in  a  variety  of  ways 
artificially  limited  by  the  efforts  of  the  unions.  It  may  be  done  temporarily 
by  striking  when  a  failure  to  fill  orders  will  cause  the  employer  excep- 
tional loss.  Violence  in  strikes  and  boycotts  is  often  the  desperate  attempt 
to  create  and  assert  a  measure  of  monopoly  power  where  of  itself  it 
does  not  exist,  i.  e.,  where  other  workers  stand  ready  to  take  the  jobs  > 
at  the  prevailing  rates  of  wages.  Monopoly  is  created  if  apprentices  L_ 
are  limited  to  fewer  than  in  the  long  run  would  be  attracted  into  the  I 
trade  by  the  prevailing  wages.  It  is  created  if  the  unions  artificially  limit 
output  to  less  than  is  consistent  with  the  health  of  the  worker.  Monopoly 
is  created  if  unions  strong  enough  to  keep  "scabs"  from  getting  work, 
fix  their  dues  high  or  put  other  obstacles  in  the  way  of  increasing  the 
membership.  Probably  the  most  striking  cases  of  high  wages  for  organ- 
ized labor  are  of  this  kind. 

The  element  of  labor-monopoly  evidently  is  mingled  in  all  degrees 


168  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

from  the  slightest  to  a  very  great  amount,  in  particular  economic  situa- 
tions. 

Open  vs.  Closed  Shop 

The  question  of  labor  monopoly  is  involved  in  the  very  crucial  ques- 
tion of  the  closed  versus  the  open  shop.  A  closed  shop  (or  union  shop) 
is  a  shop  in  which  no  non-union  men  may  be  employed,  even  at  union 
wages.  Its  existence  is  evidence  that  the  union  is  strong  enough  to 
compel  the  employer  to  act  on  this  principle  and  thus  virtually  to  force 
all  his  employes  into  the  union.  The  refusal  of  a  demand  for  the  closed 
shop  is  often  the  ground  for  a  strike.  Where  this  is  so  unions  usually 
assert  that  the  closed  shop  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  union.  If 
union  and  non-union  men  work  side  by  side  there  are  many  ways  in 
which  the  employer  is  able  to  discriminate  so  as  gradually  to  break  down 
the  union.  If  business  slackens,  the  union  man  may  be  the  first  to  be  dis- 
charged ;  if  any  preference  is  given  it  is  to  the  non-union  man.  While 
this  may  be  true,  it  would  seem,  on  the  other  hand,  that  an  unmodified 
closed  shop,  with  the  conditions  of  membership  in  the  control  of  the 
union,  creates  a  distinct  monopoly  of  labor  leaving  the  employer  help- 
less in  any  wage  dispute  and  enabling  the  union  to  enforce  its  every  demand 
regardless  of  the  competitive  conditions  of  the  labor-market  for  that 
class  of  services. 

Political  and  Economic  Considerations 

The  question  here  takes  on  a  broad  aspect.  Is  the  closed  shop,  and 
are  the  other  policies  of  trade  unions,  morally  right,  and  ought  they  to 
be  legally  sanctioned?  The  answer  to  such  questions  is  not  for  the 
economist  alone  to  give.  The  questions  involve  other  than  economic 
considerations.  They  involve  moral  and  political  considerations — not 
merely  existing  formal  law,  but  the  fundamental  issue  of  personal  liberty 
and  of  interference  with  the  liberty  of  some  citizens  by  another  group  act- 
ing without  political  authority.  For  example,  if  a  workman  is  unable 
to  earn  the  standard  rate  and  is  not  permitted  to  take  less,  he  is  forced 
to  move  to  a  place  where  there  is  no  union,  or  is  forced  out  of  the  trade 
entirely.  In  the  latter  case,  he  probably  is  compelled  to  take  a  lower 
wage  than  he  could  get  in  his  regular  occupation.  Likewise,  this  change 
artificially  increases  the  pressure  of  competition  and  reduces  the  wages 
of  others  in  the  occupation  to  which  he  turns.  So  in  the  case  of  persons 
prevented  from  becoming  apprentices  in  a  trade,  or  kept  from  taking 
work  by  threats,  or  by  the  dread  of  boycott,  or  by  the  fear  of  violence 
in  any  degree,  however  slight,  there  is  present  an  element  of  persona) 
coercion  by  the  organized  laborers.  This  is  the  price  others  are  made  tc 
pay  for  a  favorable  effect  on  the  wages  of  the  organized  laborers.  No\i 
the  strictly  economic  question  concerns  merely  the  part  as  to  the  effects 
upon  wages,  and  the  economist  (as  such)  is  going  outside  of  his  spe- 
cial field  when  he  pronounces  on  the  moral  rectitude  (and  the  desirabilit) 
in  law)  of  such,  acts  and  policies. 

One  who  fully  shares  the  feelings  of  the  organized  workers  wil 
believe  that  the  winning  of  a  strike  or  the  general  improvement  of  th< 
strikers'  condition  is  so  important  that  it  outweighs  the  evils  to  othe 


MONOPOLY  ASPECTS  OF  CLOSED  SHOP  UNIONISM  169 

individuals  and  to  society  as  a  whole.  Indeed,  to  one  in  that  state  of 
mind  the  evils  appear  very  small  or  non-existent.  The  economist  can  only 
issue  the  warning  that  the  commonest  illusion  he  encounters  is  the  belief 
of  each  class — commercial,  banking,  manufacturing,  wage-earning — that 
which  is  for  its  particular  interest  is,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  for  the  general 
interest,  so  much  as  to  justify  favoring  legislation  or  special  exemption 
from  the  general  law,  or  even  sheer  lawlessness. 

The  Public's  View  of  Unions 

We  may,  however,  observe  the  view  of  the  onlooker  striving  to  be 
impartial.  The  attitude  of  the  public  in  labor  disputes,  and  particularly 
in  regard  to  the  closed  shop,  is  a  vacillating  one.  The  general  public 
sympathizes  in  large  measure  with  the  unions  in  their  efforts  up  to  a 
more  or  less  uncertain  point;  but  the  public  does  not  like  to  see  organ- 
ized labor  with  the  power  to  dictate  terms  absolutely  to  the  employers 
any  more  than  it  likes  to  see  employers  crush  the  union.  The  unions 
are  effective  in  varying  degrees  in  strengthening  the  bargaining  power 
of  the  workers,  and  accordingly  the  results  vary  not  merely  in  degree 
but  in  kind.  The  public  wishes  to  see  "fair  play,"  and  up  to  a  certain 
point  the  union  is  a  device  to  get  fair  play.  In  truth,  what  is  in  the  public's 
thought,  somewhat  vaguely,  is  approval  of  unions  so  far  as  they  go  to 
establish  a  real  equality  in  competitive  bargaining  with  the  employers, 
but  disapproval  where  the  power  of  the  union  gets  greater  and  becomes 
monopolistic. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  organized  labor  loses  the  sympathy  of  most 
of  "the  general  public"  outside  of  unions.  When  the  union  tries  to  force 
a  higher  wage  than  the  market  will  warrant,  when  it  strives  not  to  establish 
but  to  defeat  competition,  the  public  condemns.  It  sees,  though  not 
quite  clearly,  that  such  action  makes  an  unstable  equilibrium  of  wages 
which  tempts  to  constant  friction  and  discord  with  employers  and  with 
unorganized  laborers.  It  sees  also  that  if  the  unions  force  a  wage  higher 
than  a  fair  and  open  market  affords,  this  is  rarely  done  at  the  expense 
of  the  employer;  that  in  the  long  run  it  is  at  the  expense  of  the  purchasing 
public  itself,  including  the  unprivileged  workmen. 

The  Consequences  of  Labor  Monopoly 

(From  "Latter  Day  Problems,"  by  J.  Laurence  .Laughlin, 
Emeritus  Professor  of  Economics,  University  of  Chicago.  Pub- 
lished by  Charles  Scribner's  Sons.  The  consequences  of  labor 
monopoly  as  it  is  attempted  are  well  portrayed  by  Professor 
Laughlin.) 

Whatever  the  reasons,  the  fact  is  to-day  unmistakable  that  the  unions 
include  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  total  body  of  laborers.  In  spite  of 
the  proclaimed  intention  to  include  in  a  union  each  worker  of  every  occu- 
pation, and  then  to  federate  all  the  unions,  the  unions  contain  far  less 
than  a  majority  of  the  working  force  of  the  country.  To  the  present  time, 
therefore,  the  practical  policy  of  the  unions  has  resisted  in  one  of  arti- 
ficial monopoly;  that  is,  not  able  to  control  the  whole  supply,  the  union 
attempts  to  fix  a  "union  scale"  and  maintain  only  its  members  at  work. 


170  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

This  situation,  consequently  means,  always  and  inevitably  the  existence 
of  non-union  men,  against  whom  warfare  must  be  waged.  Under  this 
system  high  wages  for  some  can  be  obtained  only  by  the  sacrifice  of 
others  outside  the  union.  The  economic  means  chosen  by  the  unions, 
then,  to  gain  higher  wages  are  practicable  only  for  a  part  of  the  labor 
body,  and  then  only  provided  all  other  competitors  can  be  driven  from 
the  field.  The  policy  of  artificial  monopoly  being,  thus,  the  common 
principle  of  a  great  majority  of  unions,  we  may  next  briefly  consider  the 
inevitable  consequences  of  such  a  policy. 

1.  The  immediate  corollary  of  the  union  policy  is  a  warfare  a  1'ou- 
trance  against  non-union   men.     This   hostility   against  brother   workers 
is  excused  on  the  ground  that  it  is  the  only  means  of  keeping  up  the 
"union  scale"  of  wages.     Although  an  artificial  monopoly  is  unjust  and 
selfish,  and  certain  to  end  in  failure,  the  unions  have  doggedly  adhered 
to  it  so  far  as  to  create  a  code  of  ethics  which  justifies  any  act  which 
will  preserve  the  monopoly.     This  is  the  reason  why  a  non-union  man 
seeking  work  is  regarded  as  a  traitor  to  his  class,  when  in  reality  he  is  a 
traitor  to  an  insufficient  economic  principle.     As  a  human  being  he  has 
the  same  right  to  live  and  work  as  any  other,  whether  a  member  of  a 
union  or  not.    The  arrogance  of  unionism  in  ruling  on  the  fundamentals 
of  human  liberty,  the  assumption  of  infallibility  and  superiority  to  insti- 
tutions which  have  been  won  only  by  centuries  of  political  sacrifice  and 
effort,  is  something  supernal — something  to  be  resented  by  every  lover  of 
liberty.  'Unionism,  if  unjust  to  other  men,  cannot  stand. 

2.  Since  the  "union  scale"  of  an  artificial  monopoly  is  clearly  not 
the  market  rate  of  wages,  the  maintenance  of  the  former  can  be  perpe- 
trated only  by  limiting  the  supply  to   the  members  of  the  union.     The 
only  means  of  keeping  non-union  men  from  competition  is  force.    Conse- 
quently,  the   inevitable   outcome   of    the    present   policy,    of   many    labor 
organizations   is  lawlessness   and   an   array   of   power  against  the    State. 
Their  policy  being  what  it  is,  their  purposes  can  be  successfully  carried 
out  only  by  force,  and  by  denying  to  outsiders  the  privileges  of  equality 
and  liberty.     Some  time  the  means  of  enforcing  their  unenacted  views  is 
known  as  "peaceful  picketing";  but  this  is  only  a  mask   for  threats  of 
violence.     In    fact,   intimidation   of   all   kinds    up   to   actual    murder   has 
been  employed  to  drive  non-union  competitors  out  of  the  labor  market. 
Picketing,  boycotts,  breaking  heads,  slugging,  murder — all  outrages  against 
the  law  and  order,  against  a  government  of  liberty  and  equality — are  the 
necessary   consequences    of    the    existing   beliefs    of    unionists,    and   they 
cannot  gain  their  ends  without  them.     So  long  as  the  unions  adhere  to 
their  present  principles  so  long  will  they  be  driven  to  defy  the  majesty 
of  the  law,  and  work  to  subvert  a  proper  respect  for  the  orderly  conduct 
of  government. 

The  dictum  of  a  few  men  in  a  union  has  been  set  above  the  equality 
of  men  before  the  law.  The  union  lays  down  an  ethical  proposition,  and 
by  its  own  agencies  sets  itself  to  apply  it  at  any  and  all  cost.  This  is  a 
method  of  tyranny  and  not  of  liberty.  The  right  of  the  humblest  person 
to  be  protected  in  his  life  and  property  is  the  very  corner  stone  of  free 
government.  It  means  more  for  the  weak  than  for  the  strong.  There- 


MONOPOLY  ASPECTS  OF  CLOSED  SHOP  UNIONISM  171 

fore,  the  opinions  of  a  loosely  constituted  body,  representing  a  limited  set 
of  interests,  should  not,  and  will  not,  be  allowed  to  assume  a  power 
greater  than  the  political  liberty  for  all,  rich  or  poor,  which  has  been  a 
thousand  years  in  the  making.  By  the  abuses  of  unionism  there  has  been 
set  up  an  impcrium  in  imperio — one  inconsistent  with  the  other.  One  or 
the  other  must  give  way.  Which  one  it  shall  be  no  one  can  doubt.  The 
dictum  of  rioters  will  never  be  allowed  by  modern  society  to  eradicate 
the  beneficent  results  which  have,  issued  from  the  long  evolution  of  civil 
liberty.  If  the  platform  of  the  unions  is  opposed  to  the  fundamentals  of 
law  and  progress,  it  must  yield  to  the  inevitable  and  be  reconstructed  on 
correct  principles  of  economics  and  justice. 

Unions  Resort  to   Politics 

3.  The  labor  leaders,  finding  themselves  opposed  by  the  strong  forces 
of  society,  have  at  times  made  use  of  politics.    They  have  sought  to  influ- 
ence executive  action  in  their  favor.    Mayors  of  cities  are  under  pressure 
not  to  use  the  police  to  maintain  order  when  strikers  are  intimidating 
non-union  men.    More  than  that,  since  the  presence  of  soldiers  would  se- 
cure safety  from  force  to  non-union  workers,  union  leaders  have  urged 
governors,  and  even  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  refrain  from 
sending  troops  to  points  where  disorderly  strikes  are  in  operation.     Not 
only  the  police  and  the  soldiery,  but  even  the  courts,  when  used  solely 
to  enforce  the  law  as  created  by  the  majority  of  voters,  have  been  con- 
spicuously attacked  as  the  enemies  of  "organized  labor."     The  hostility  of 
these  agencies  in  truth  is  not  toward  labor,  or  its  organization,  but  toward 
the  perverse  and  misguided  policy  adopted  by  the  labor  leaders. 

The  entry  of  unions  into  politics,  in  general,  is  a  sign  of  sound  growth. 
It  is,  at  least,  a  recognition  that  the  only  legitimate  way  of  enforcing 
their  opinions  upon  others  is  by  getting  them  incorporated  into  law  by 
constitutional  means.  And  yet  legislation  in  favor  of  special  interests 
will  be  met  by  the  demand  of  equal  treatment  for  all  other  interests  con- 
cerned; and  in  this  arena  the  battle  must  be  fought  out.  The  unions  will 
not  have  their  own  way  by  any  means.  So  far  as  concerns  the  rate  of 
wages,  in  any  event,  political  agitation  and  legislation  can  do  little.  The 
forces  governing  the  demand  and  supply  of  labor  are  beyond  the  control 
of  legislation.  But  other  subjects  of  labor  legislation  have  been  intro- 
duced, as  is  well  known,  such  as  eight-hour  laws,  high  wages  for  State 
employes,  and  demands  for  employment  by  the  Government  of  only  union 
men.  All  these  efforts  would  be  largely  unnecessary  were  the  action  of 
the  unions  founded  on  another  principle  than  monopoly. 

4.  The    difficulties    arising    from    this    incorrect    policy   of    artificial 
monopoly  of  the  labor  supply  have  been  felt  by  the  unions,  but  they  have 
not  been  assigned  to  their  true  cause.    Believing  in  this  theory,  even  though 
incorrect,  they  have  gone  on  enforcing  their  demands  by  methods  unre- 
lated to  the  real  causes  at  work.     They  have  tried  to  strengthen  their 
position  by  claiming  a  share  in   the  ownership  of  the  establishment  in 
which  they  work,  or  a  right  of  property  in  the  product  they  produce,  or 
a  part  in  the  business  management  of  the  concern  which  employs  them. 
They  have  tried  to  say  who  shall  be  hired,  who  dismissed,  where  mate- 


172  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

rials  shall  be  bought,  by  whom  goods  shall  be  carried  or  sold,  and  the 
like.  Their  purpose  is  not  always  clear;  but  it  seems  to  be  a  part  of  a 
plan  to  keep  the  employer  at  their  mercy,  and  thus  under  the  necessity 
of  submitting  to  any  and  all  demands  as  regards  wages. 

In  this  matter  the  unions  cannot  succeed.  The  very  essence  of  a 
defined  rate  of  wages  is  that  the  laborer  contracts  himself  out  of  all  risk. 
If  the  workman  claims  to  be  a  partner  in  the  commercial  enterprise,  ask- 
ing in  addition  a  part  of  the  gains,  he  must  also  be  willing  to  share  the 
losses.  This  is  obviously  impossible  for  the  ordinary  working  man.  Hired 
labor  and  narrow  means  go  together.  Capital  can,  labor  cannot,  wait 
without  serious  loss.  Laborers,  therefore,  can  not  take  the  risks  of  in- 
dustry and  assume  the  familiar  losses  of  business.  This  is  the  full  and 
conclusive  reason  why  the  laborer  contracts  himself  out  of  risk  and 
accepts  a  definite  rate  of  wages.  If  he  does  this,  he  is  estopped,  both 
morally  and  legally,  from  further  proprietary  claims  on  the  product  or 
on  the  establishment. 

By  way  of  resume,  it  is  to  be  seen  that  the  attempt  to  increase  the 
income  of  labor  on  the  unionist  principle  of  a  limitation  of  competitors 
had  led  into  an  impasse,  where  further  progress  is  blocked  by  the  follow- 
ing evils: 

1.  The  wrong  to  non-union  men. 

2.  The  defiance  of  the  established  .order  of  society. 

3.  A  futile  resort  to  legislation. 

4.  The  interference  with  the  employers'  management. 

Restrictions  on  Membership  Admission 
(From  "Admission  to  American  Trade  Unions"  by  Dr.  F.  E. 
Wolfe,  Colby  College.    Published  by  Johns  Hopkins  University  in 
1912.    How  the  unions  try  to  raise  wages  by  limiting  the  number 
of  skilled  workers  through  apprenticeship  rules.) 

The  most  effective  device  whereby  the  union  may  guard  the  regular 
entrance  to  a  trade  is  the  limitation  of  the  number,  rather  than  the 
requirement  of  certain  qualifications,  of  persons  who  may  become  appren- 
tices. Since  the  beginning  of  customary  or  statutory  recognition  of  the 
industrial  need  of  an  adequate  supply  of  well-trained  mechanics  a  limita- 
tion of  the  number  of  apprentices  has  been  attempted.  The  essential 
purpose  of  numerical  limitation  has  continued  to  be  the  insuring  of  a 
supply  of  workmen  according  to  the  needs  of  each  trade.  But  it  may 
easily  serve  also  one  immediate  aim  of  trade  unionism — the  maintenance 
of  wages — by  diminishing  the  competition  of  laborers  within  the  trade. 
Accordingly,  all  unions  attempting  apprentice  regulation  enforce  more  or 
less  successfully  some  form  of  numerical  limitation  of  apprentices. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  F.  S.  Deibler,  professor  of  Eco- 
nomics at  Northwestern  University,  before  the  Industrial  Rela- 
tions Commission,  July  23,  1914.  Page  3335  of  the  record.  The 
testimony  of  Mr.  Judge,  which  follows,  shows  why  high  initia- 
tion fees  are  charged.) 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  What  have  you  to  say  with  reference  to  the  methods 
used  by  the  unions  in  time  of  peace  and  in  time  of  war? 


MONOPOLY  ASPECTS  OF  CLOSED  SHOP  UNIONISM  173 

PROF.  DEIBLER:    Well,  could  I  ask  to  have  that  a  little  more  specific? 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  Well,  I  mean  have  you  any  views  as  to  the  method 
used,  such  a  restriction  of  membership  in  time  of  peace;  high  initiation 
fee? 

PROF.  DEIBLER:  I  think  the  trade-union  that  undertakes  to  limit  its 
membership  by  high  fee  tends  to  establish  a  monopoly  of  labor  and  is 
unwise  from  their  point  of  view,  and  would  be  just  as  detrimental  to  the 
community  as  monopoly  on  the  side  of  the  employer. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Patrick  Judge,  secretary-treasurer 
of  the  Plasters'  Helpers'  Protective  Association,  before  the  Indus- 
trial Relations  Commission,  May  28,  1914.  Page  1763  of  the 
record.  The  union  wished  to  confine  work  to  its  own  group.) 

MR.  THOMPSON  :  At  one  time  did  you  charge  as  much  as  $100  for 
an  initiation  fee? 

MR.  JUDGE:     Yes,  sir. 

MR.  THOMPSON:    When  was  that? 

MR.  JUDGE:    In  the  prosperous  years  of  1905  and  1906. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     Why  did  you  charge  so  much  for  initiation  dues? 

MR.  JUDGE:  Because  so  many  applicants  appeared  to  be  admitted  into 
the  organization  that  we  considered  it  advisable  to  protect  our  members. 

MR.  THOMPSON:     And  that  was  the  reason? 

MR.  JUDGE:    Yes. 

Fining  Employer  to  Force  Monopoly 

(How  the  unions  attempt  to  create  and  maintain  monopoly 
of  the  labor  market  is  revealed  in  the  following  from  the  New 
Sky  Line,  Little  Rock,  of  March  27,  1920.  The  unions  attempted 
to  force  employers  to  sell  only  to  union  members.) 

As  an  example  of  the  extremes  to  which  the  craft  unions  went  when 
the  closed  shop  existed  in  Little  Rock,  the  case  of  the  Electric  Construc- 
tion Company  is  cited.  The  Electrical  Union  signed  up  an  agreement 
with  the  contractors  July  I,  1916,  and  in  January  the  Electric  Construc- 
tion Company  had  to  pay  fifteen  dollars  for  having  sold  material  to  a 
non-union  workman,  to  be  used  on  what  had  been  declared  an  unfair  job. 

When  the  job  was  declared  unfair,  the  builder  wanted  the  work 
continued,  and  as  the  Electric  Construction  Company  could  not  do  it,  the 
manager,  when  asked  as  to  who  was  obtainable,  gave  the  builder  the 
name  of  a  non-union  workman,  and  later  sold  him  material  with  which 
to  complete  the  building.  The  business  agent  and  the  committee  of  the 
union  investigated  the  matter,  declared  it  was  a  violation  of  the  agree- 
ment, and  required  the  Electric  Construction  Company  to  pay  them  for 
their  time  in  making  the  investigation;  or,  in  other  words,  fined  the  firm 
fifteen  dollars  for  giving  an  employer  the  name  of  a  non-union  workman 
and  selling  material  to  go  on  a  job  declared  by  the  union  to  be  unfair. 
(The  affidavit  of  Mr.  Fred  C.  Bragg  is  then  quoted  by  the  "New  Sky 
Line.") 

(Views  of  the  New  York  Chapter  of  the  American  Institute 
of  Architects  on  New  York  building  conditions,  in  a  memorandum 


174  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

presented  May  26,  1914,  to  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission, 
with  additional  comment  by  Mr.  D.  Everett  Waid,  who  presented 
the  memorandum  to  the  Commission.  Pages  1658-1660  of  the 


Recently  there  has  been  a  new  attempt  looking  to  the  spread  of 
union  control  in  the  building  industry,  thus  far  not  very  successful.  It 
is  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  building  trades  unions  to  force  the 
employment  of  union  workmen  for  any  work  that  is  done  in  a  building 
after  the  building  is  completed.  While  the  unions  have  almost  com- 
pletely controlled  the  construction  work  of  this  city,  it  was  assumed  that 
once  a  building  was  completed  the  owner  could  thereafter  employ  anyone 
he  pleased  and  do  anything  he  pleased  thereafter  either  with  his  own 
employes  or  others.  An  attempt  has  been  made,  sometimes  successfully, 
within  recent  years  to  force  such  owners  and  their  tenants  after  occupying 
their  buildings  to  employ  union  house  carpenters,  union  machinists,  union 
fitters,  etc.  In  some  cases  it  is  even  attempted  to  prevent  an  owner  from 
employing  union  workmen  even  if  he  is  willing  to  do  so  unless  he 
employs  them  through  the  association's  contractor.  The  attempt  has 
been  made  to  enforce  this  condition  through  a  threatened  strike  on  the 
part  of  all  union  labor  before  the  building  is  completed  unless  the  owner 
agrees  before  such  completion  to  unionize  his  shop  or  factory  after  the 
building  is  completed.  Although  this  has  not  always  been  successful  the 
plan  threatens  to  be  very  serious  if  nothing  is  done  to  stop  it. 

Steel  and  the  Open  Shop 

In  their  attempts  to  divert  attention  from  their  restrictive 
and  destructive  policies  the  closed  shop  leaders  are  endeavoring 
to  make  the  public  believe  that  the  big  employers  of  the  nation, 
headed  by  the  steel  interests,  are  in  a  "conspiracy"  to  deprive  all 
union  workers  of  their  employment.  They  have  also  charged  the 
railways  with  attempting  to  "disrupt"  labor  organizations. 

The  closed  shop  advocates  have  made  much  of  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Grace  and  other  steel  men.  It  has  been  alleged  that  they 
have  combined  to  refuse  to  furnish  steel  to  those  using  any  union 
labor  in  its  erection.  There  is  no  claim  that  their  purpose  has 
been  to  raise  prices  to  the  public. 

Employers  in  the  steel  industry  have  not  discriminated  against 
union  labor;  they  have  insisted  that  their  products  be  erected 
under  open-shop  conditions,  where  union  labor  may  be  employed 
if  it  is  willing,  and  where  non-union  or  independent  labor  is  not 
discriminated  against  or  refused  employment.  They  refused  in 
New  York  to  enter  the  unlawful  combine  between  employers  and 
the  Brindell  group,  the  effect  of  which  has  been  to  raise  prices  and 
deprive  independent  labor  of  work.  The  attempted  compulsion 
by  both  the  Building  Trades  Employers'  Association  and  the 


MONOPOLY  ASPECTS  OF  CLOSED  SHOP  UNIONISM  175 

Brindell  group  to   force  the  structural   iron   industry  into  the 
combination  was  successfully  resisted. 

The  December  30,  1920  Bulletin  of  the  National  Founders' 
Association  states  the  matter  squarely  and  concisely,  quite 
properly  saying: 

Much  is  made  of  the  statement  that  the  Bethlehem  Company  did  not 
want  to  sell  fabricated  steel  unless  it  was  put  up  under  open  shop  con- 
ditions. Nobody  appears  to  remember  the  fact  that  the  unions  will  not 
permit  their  men  to  use  steel  made  in  open  shops,  that  strikes  would  be 
called  where  such  steel  was  used  by  contractors,  and  that  every  effort 
from  dynamite  to  dissuasion  would  be  used  to  prevent  the  erection  of  a 
building  in  which  an  open  shop  product  was  a  part. 

After  Mr.  Grace,  president  of  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company, 
had  testified  on  December  15,  1920,  that  it  was  the  policy  of  his 
company  to  sell  structural  steel  only  to  those  who  would  erect  it 
on  an  open  shop  basis,  the  following  occurred : 

QUESTION  (Senator  Kaplan)  :  Don't  you  believe  that  when  you  direct 
him,  in  the  purchase  of  your  steel,  that  he  must  see  to  it  that  other  than 
union  men,  or  at  least  in  addition  to  union  men  shall  erect  it,  you  are 
discriminating? 

ANSWER:  I  think  we  are  asking  him  not  to  discriminate;  that  is 
my  interpretation.  He  is  discriminating  because  he  rules  out  the  non- 
union man. 

The  conditions  which  created  organizations  of  employers  to 
resist  the  closed  shop  in  the  steel  industry  are  clearly  pointed  out 
in  a  pamphlet  written  by  Luke  Grant  and  published  by  the  United 
States  Industrial  Relations  Commission  in  1915.  Employers  who 
refused  to  deal  with  the  Structural  Iron  Workers'  Union,  directly 
or  indirectly,  were  forced  to  do  so  by  reason  of  the  conditions 
which  prevailed  in  New*  York  City,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  while 
the  Structural  Iron  Workers  were  able  to  enforce  them.  Dyna- 
mite, and  violence  of  all  kinds  were  used  to  establish  the  closed 
shop.  Thirty-eight  of  the  leaders  of  the  uinon  were  sentenced 
a  few  years  ago  to  the  penitentiary  as  a  result.  Did  the  members 
disavow  the  actions  of  these  leaders,  who  used  union  funds  to 
terrorize  the  building  industry?  The  answer  is  that  they  have 
since  elected  twenty-one  of  these  convicted  men  to  local  and 
international  offices  in  the  organization  which  is  still  affiliated  with 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Their  action  indicates  no 
change  of  sentiment.  Employers  who  refuse  to  deal  with  unions 
which  practice  and  endorse  such  restrictive  and  destructive  prac- 
tices deserve  the  encouragement  of  industry  and  the  public. 


176  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

The  real  evil  of  the  closed  shop  and  its  great  menace  to  busi- 
ness and  to  the  public  are  the  weak-kneed  employers  who  yield 
to  the  closed  shop  demands  and  the  employers  who  attempt 
through  the  weapon  of  the  closed  shop  to  monopolize  business 
and  raise  prices  without  limit. 

Refusing  to   Encourage   Discrimination   Against   Non-Union 

Men 

The  Buffalo  Commercial  of  December  16,  1920,  commented 
editorially  on  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Grace  before  the  Lockwood 
Committee : 

The  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  itself  employs  union  labor.  What 
Mr.  Grace  did  say  was  that  his  firm  refused  to  sell  steel  to  building  firms 
in  New  York  and  Philadelphia  districts  that  employed  union  labor  ex- 
clusively, or  in  other  words,  his  firm  declined  to  sell  to  closed  shop  build- 
ers in  these  districts. 

Mr.  Grace  stated  quite  frankly  the  reason  that  impelled  his  firm  to 
decline  to  have  business  relations  with  firms  that  refused  to  hire  men 
unless  they  took  out  a  card  of  membership  in  a  labor  union.  It  was  in  de- 
fense of  the  open  shop  principle.  That  is  quite  sufficient.  Every  manu- 
facturer in  the  country  is  justified  in  doing  everything  legitimate  that 
lies  within  his  power  to  preserve  a  principle  so  fundamental  and  so  vital 
to  the  welfare  of  the  nation  as  this  one  is. 

It  is  just  as  unfair  to  condemn  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
for  refusing  to  sell  goods  to  the  Russian  Soviet  Republic  as  to  condemn 
the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  and  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company 
for  declining  to  sell  fabricated  steel  to  closed  shop  builders.  The  reasons 
for  refusing  to  enter  into  relations  with  the  Bolsheviki  are  exactly  the 
same  as  exist  in  the  steel  business.  The  Russian  reds  nave  been  trying 
to  spread  their  propaganda  throughout  this  country.  They  have  been 
instigating  revolutionary  movements  wherever  possible  with  the  intention 
of  undermining  and  blowing  up  our  democracy. 

A  year  ago  last  September  union  labor  under  the  leadership  of 
Foster,  the  Syndicalist,  and  Fitzpatrick,  the  Chicago  radical,  aided  and 
abetted  by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  sought  to  get  control  of 
the  steel  industry  in  America  with  the  view  of  ultimately  extending  their 
power  over  every  industry  that  uses  some  form  of  fabricated  steel  in  its 
business.  The  strike  that  was  then  organized  failed  through  the  active 
and  intelligent  opposition  of  the  very  men  who  are  today  refusing  to  give 
organized  labor  a  chance  to  engineer  another  strike  for  power. 

When  one  American  city  can  have  tied  up  on  account  of  labor  rows 
about  $100,000,000  worth  of  building  construction  during  the  first  seven 
months  of  the  year  it  would  seem  to  be  about  time  that  those  who  supply 
dealers  with  building  material  got  down  to  some  plan  to  put  an  end  to 
such  enormous  economic  waste.  And  if  that  plan  embraces  the  refusal 
to  sell  supplies  to  such  builders  the  sooner  will  it  spell  the  end  of  a 
labor  condition  that  is  ruinous  factors  entering  into  the  business. 


MONOPOLY  ASPECTS  OF  CLOSED  SHOP  UNIONISM  177 

But  certainly  the  New  York  contractors  who  entered  into  those 
infamous  contracts  with  Brindell  and  other  labor  leaders  to  gouge  the  city, 
builders  and  workers  alike  should  be  the  last  persons  in  the  world  to 
protest  against  the  refusal  of  the  steel  companies  to  be  parties  to  their 
crooked  deals. 

The  following  analytical  review  of  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Grace  by  the  Independent,  January  i,  1921,  gives  a  far  different 
idea  of  that  testimony  than  one  would  gather  from  the  usual 
press  headlines: 

One  of  the  most  interesting  chapters  in  American  industrial  history 
was  the  cross  examination  of  Eugene  G.  Grace,  president  of  the  Bethle- 
hem Steel  Corporation,  by  Samuel  Untermyer,  counsel  for  the  Lockwood 
Committee,  investigating  the  building  scandals  in  New  York.  Mr.  Grace 
defined  the  open  shop  as  a  place  where  any  man  can  work,  "where  there 
is  no  discrimination  against  employment  of  any  man  to  do  any  kind  of 
work  which  he  might  have  to  do."  He  denied  that  it  was  equivalent  to 
discrimination  against  union  labor.  He  said  that  members  of  trades 
unions  were  welcome  in  the  steel  plants,  but  that  they  would  not  be 
recognized  or  dealt  with  as  such ;  ..they  could  keep  their  union  member- 
ship if  they  liked,  but  they  would  be  considered  simply  as  individual 
employes. 

Mr.  Luke  Grant,  in  the  official  report  referred  to,  analyzed 
in  1915  the  histories  and  methods  of  the  National  Erectors' 
Association  and  the  Structural  Iron  Workers.  The  National 
Erectors'  Association  has  been  accused  of  discriminating  against 
union  workers,  particularly  in  New  York  City. 

Mr.  Grant  states  that  after  the  National  Erectors'  Association 
adopted  its  open  shop  policy  in  1906, 

"Its  members  did  not  deviate  from  that  policy  to  the  extent  of  hold- 
ing any  formal  conferences  with  union  representatives,  or  entering  into 
any  agreements  with  them.  But  they  had  no  objections  to  employing 
union  men  if  they  could  find  any  willing  to  work  for  them.  Neither 
did  they  hesitate  to  sublet  contracts  to  firms  employing  union  men,  if  that 
plan  appeared  to  offer  any  advantage."  (page  72.) 

A  large  percentage  of  the  iron  workers  on  "open  shop"  job? 

in  New  York  City  are  union  men.     Statements  such  as  many 

periodicals  make  to  the  effect  that  steel  interests  wish  to  bring 

about  conditions  where  union  men  cannot  get  work  are  not  true. 

The  Railroad  Boomerang 

Friday,  January  7,  1921,  the  International  Association  of 
Machinists  filed  with  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  a 
petition  requesting  "that  an  immediate  inquiry  be  instituted  into 
the  present  practices  of  a  large  number  of  railways  in  entering 
into  contracts  to  have  their  locomotive  and  car  repair  work  per- 
formed in  outside  establishments."  This  practice,  it  was  alleged, 


178  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

"has  recently  become  so  extensive  as  to  affect  seriously  the  gen- 
eral public  interest." 

It  was  charged  (i)  That  locomotive  repairing  by  private 
equipment  companies  is  "on  an  average"  four  times  as  expensive 
as  in  the  railways'  own  shops  and  (2)  That  freight  car  repair 
work  costs  are  increased  $250,000,000  yearly.  $750,000,000  is 
the  minimum  of  which  it  is  alleged  the  railways  are  being 
"milked."  "As  the  public  pays  the  bill  ultimately  for  the  trans- 
portation industry,  this  means  that  the  public  is  being  required  to 
pay  indefensible  overcharges." 

The  reasons  for  the  adoption  of  this  policy  are  several,  it  is 
claimed:  (i)  To  make  profitable  "the  operations  of  certain  pri- 
vate equipment  companies  in  which  the  railroads  are  frequently 
interested."  (2)  The  aim  is  "to  disrupt  railroad  labor  organi- 
zations which  have  developed  during  the  war."  This  is  said  to 
be  a  phase  of  the  nationwide  op^i  shop  movement. 

The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  is  asked  to  compel, 
except  where  necessity  prevents  it,  the  railways  to  have  their  loco- 
motive and  car  repair  work  done  in  their  own  shops,  since  "the 
law  contemplates  that  revenues  derived  from  transportation  ser- 
vices must  be  economically,  efficiently  and  honestly  accounted  for 
or  expended." 

This  attack  is  the  forerunner  of  a  gigantic  publicity  campaign 
in  defense  of  the  closed  shop  which  will  be  undertaken  by  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Many  attacks  and  charges  will  be  made  which  will  obtain, 
because  of  their  seriousness,  wide  publicity.  Probably  no  attempt 
will  be  made  to  substantiate  in  any  conclusive  way  most  of  these ; 
they  will  endeavor  by  inference  and  innunendo  to  cast  discredit  on 
all  the  leading)  advocates  of  the  open  shop.  The  closed  shoppers 
are  on  the  defensive ;  they  cannot  successfully  deny  the  industrial 
inefficiency  and  discord  for  which  they  are  responsible.  They 
realize  that  the  public  is  steadily  turning  towards  the  open  door 
in  industry;  they  hope  to  offset  this  by  making  the  public  forget 
the  great  issues  involved.  "Why  beholdes*t  thou  the  mote  that  is 
in  thy  brother's  eye,  but  considerest  not  the  beam  that  in  is  thine 
own  eye?" 

The  petition  declared  that  the  Lockwood  Committee  investi- 
gations revealed  that  "the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  refused  to 
furnish  fabricated  steel  to  construction  companies  in  New  York 


MONOPOLY  ASPECTS  OF  CLOSED  SHOP  UNIONISM  179 

City  who  employed  members  of  labor  unions."  Are  all  their 
"facts"  like  this  one?  The  testimony  revealed  no  such  thing;  the 
steel  interests  would  sell  to  those  employing  "members  of  labor 
unions ;"  they  would  not  sell  to  firms  which  employed  only  union 
labor  and  refused  to  employ  any  independent  workers. 

Union  Charges  Inaccurate 

But  what  are  the  real  facts  regarding  this  railway  charge? 
The  closed  shoppers  desire  to  establish  the  closed  shop  in  all  the 
branches  of  railway  transportation,  thus  giving  enormous  power 
over  the  economic  life  of  the  nation  to  a  comparatively  small 
group.  Have  the  railways,  as  the  Wall  Street  Journal  asks, 
"gambled  away  hundreds  of  millions  of  corporate  funds  upon  a 
chance  of  'breaking'  the  labor  unions"  ? 

What  do  the  railways  themselves  say  ? 

Thomas  DeWitt  Cuyler,  Chairman  of  the  Association  of 
Railway  Executives,  is  quoted  as  follows  in  the  New  York  Herald 
of  January  12,  1921 : 

When  the  railroads  were  returned  to  private  operation  there  was 
an  abnormal  percentage  of  cars  and  locomotives  in  bad  order,  requiring 
repairs.  The  excess  of  bad  order  equipment  was  beyond  the  capacity  of 
the  railway  shops  and  the  railway  labor  engaged  in  the  repair  of  cars 
had  declined  in  efficiency  and  output.  These  abnormal  conditions  re- 
quired abnormal  remedies  to  meet  them. 

Mr.  Cuyler  is  also  quoted  in  the  New  York  Times  of  January 
24,  1921,  as  saying  that  "the  effect  of  the  rules  and  working  con- 
ditions still  controlling  the  repair  of  equipment  in  railway  labor 
shops  has  been  disastrous  to  efficiency  and  output." 

The  President  of  the  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Rail- 
road is  quoted  as  saying  that  one  reason  for  sending  work  to  out- 
side shops  was  the  "limitations  as  to  employing  machinists  pro- 
vided by  schedules  with  labor  organizations." 

President  Kurn,  of  the  St.  Louis-San  Francisco  Railway,  is 
quoted  in  the  Wall  Street  Journal,  of  January  21,  1921,  as  saying 
that  the  outside  repair  of  equipment  was  imperative  and  that  the 
cost  was  less  than  home  work : 

The  work  done  in  the  contract  shops  has  cost  and  is  costing  less  than 
similar  work  in  our  own  shops  which  in  itself  is  a  complete  justification 
for  doing  the  work  in  outside  shops  leaving  out  of  consideration  entirely 
the  country's  need  to  have  the  repairs  of  this  class  of  equipment  speeded 
up  to  the  limit. 


i8o  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Commenting  on  the  charges  of  the  Machinists,  the  New  York 
Times  of  January  n,  1921,  said  editorially: 

Chairman  Clark  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  has  testified 
that  the  points  raised  have  been  under  investigation,  and  that  the  excess 
costs  have  been  found  to  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  repairs  in  the  railway 
shops  were  stated  without  the  items  of  interest,  overhead  and  depreciation 
charges.  These  costs  are  not  avoided  by  not  being  entered  in  the  ac- 
counts, and  private  companies  must  include  them  to  maintain  their  credit. 

We  see  that  the  claims  of  the  machinists  have  been  promptly 
refuted.  Their  sincerity  may  well  be  doubted ;  the  desire  to  per- 
petuate the  national  agreements  and  insure  the  closed  shop  makes 
them  not  over-cautious  as  to  the  truth  of  their  allegations. 

But  the  attempt  to  hide  by  a  smokescreen,  the  real  object,  has 
failed.  In  the  word's  of  the  Wall  Street  Journal:  "It  now  appears 
likely  that  by  concentrating  public  attention  upon  the  matter,  the 
machinists  will  have  powerfully  assisted  the  carriers  to  get  rid  of 
the  oppressive  and  indefensible  'shop  crafts  agreement,'  which  has 
been  perhaps  the  chief  obstacle  to  restoration  of  adequate  trans- 
portation service  and  railroad  credit." 


COMPETITION  AND  THE  CLOSED  SHOP  181 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

Competition  and  the  Closed  Shop 
How  the  Closed  Shop  Raises  Prices 

There  is  yet  another  way  in  which  the  closed  shop  affects  the 
public;  it  either  raises  prices  directly  or  prevents  them  from 
going  as  low  as  they  otherwise  would.  This  is  the  inevitable  result 
of  all  restrictions  placed  upon  output,  for  it  is  a  fundamental  law 
of  economics  that  as  the  cost  of  production  rises  the  price  paid 
by  the  consumer  must  rise,  and  that  a  smaller  supply  of  a  com- 
modity means  a  higher  price. 

Here  too,  the  closed  shopper  may  believe  that  he  has  a  con- 
clusive answer,  in  pointing  out  the  various  combines  of  building 
trades  employers  disclosed  by  the-  Lockwood  Committee  in  New 
York  City,  which  are  alleged  by  monopolistic  methods  to  have 
exorbitantly  raised  prices.  The  "wicked  employer"  is  responsible 
for  price  increases,  and  not  the  closed  shop  union,  he  will  say. 

Closed  Shop  Used  by  Some  Employers  to  Fleece  Public 

It  is  only  necessary  in  this  connection  to  recall  the  real  facts. 
These  combines  of  employers  were  able  to  either  force  other 
employers  into  their  organization,  make  them  pay  tribute,  or  drive 
them  out  of  business.  How  was  this  done?  Quotations  from  the 
daily  papers  of  the  testimony  given  will  answer : 

Says  the  New  York  Times,  of  November  25,  1920:  "Sidney 
H.  Sonn,  a  builder,  testified  that  two  plumbing  contractors  had  to 
give  up  work  on  a  contract  'because  of  pressure/  brought  by  the 
Master  Plumbers'  Association  through  walking  delegates  of  the 
Building  Trades  Council"  (the  Brindell  organization.  Italics 
ours.)  Further:  "The  Master  Plumbers5  Association,  acting  in 
concert  with  the  council,  called  strikes  on  the  work  because  it  was 
not  being  done  by  one  of  the  inner  group  of  plumbing  contractors, 
associated  with  Hettrick.  *  *  *  A  job  that  was  to  cost  him 
$37,500  actually  cost  $107,779  before  he  was  finished,  because  of 
these  difficulties." 

In  the  Times  of  December  3,  we  find  this :  "Anthony  Bres- 
cia, a  mason  contractor  of  681  Ellerton  Avenue,  the  Bronx  *  * 
described  how  he  was  forced  out  of  business  after  he  had  refused 
to  tolerate  the  exorbitant  increases  of  prices  made  by  the  Stone 


182  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Masons  Contractors'  Association.  He  was  compelled  to  join  after 
threats  had  been  made  to  ruin  him.  *  *  *  The  contractors 
who  failed  to  join  the  organization  were  expelled,  and  Louis  Maz- 
zola,  walking  delegate  of  the  Stone  Masons  Union  Local  No.  74, 
called  the  employes  out  on  strike." 

According  to  the  Times  of  December  4,  "it  was  also  revealed 
that  delegates  of  the  Hoisting  Engineers'  Union  appeared  before 
the  contractors  (Contractors'  Protective  Association)  with  a  plan 
to  call  off  their  men  on  all  firms  not  affiliated  with  the  organi- 
sation" 

Driving  Employers  Out  of  Business 
On  December  n,  1920,  the  Times  said:  "A  sensational  story 
of  how  two  associations  of  marble  contractors,  working  in  con- 
junction with  labor  unions,  kept  the  entire  marble  industry  of  the 
country  in  a  tight  grip  was  spread  upon  the  records  of  the  Lock- 
wood  Committee  yesterday :  *  *  *  The  two  employers'  asso- 
ciations had  agreements  with  local  and  international  unions  in  the 
machine  trade.  *  *  *  The  agreements  between  the  unions 
and  employers  bound  the  employers  to  take  none  but  union  men, 
and  the  unions  bound  themselves  to  work  for  none  but  members 
of  the  employers'  associations.  *  *  *  The  unions  acted  as  an 
enforcement  agency  for  the  employers,  driving  out  of  business 
those  contractors  who  were  not  permitted  to  become  members  of 
the  employers'  associations." 

Says  the  Times  Review  of  the  situation  two  days  later :  ."In 
some  cases,  as  brought  out  before  the  Lockwood  Committee,  the 
agreement  was  used  as  a  club  to  force  employers  outside  the  asso- 
ciation to  join  it  under  pain  of  having  their  workingmen  with- 
drawn by  the  union." 

And  we  find  this  in  the  Times  of  December  31 : 
"It  was  brought  out  that  by  means  of  exclusive  agreements 
made  between  constituent  members  of  the  association  (Building 
Trades  Employers),  and  the  unions  in  BrindelFs  council,  no 
employer  could  hope  to  do  business  unless  he  became  a  member  of 
the  employers'  association.  *  *  *  Eidlitz  was  asked  whether 
such  exclusive  agreements  as  to  the  employment  of  only  union 
men  who  agreed  to  work  for  none  but  members  of  the  association 
were  illegal:  He  did  not  know  they  were  illegal,  but  said  they 
were  'against  public  policy.'  "  Shall  we  condemn  employers  who, 
singly  or  collectively,  refuse  to  join  such  alliances  'against  public 


COMPETITION  AND  THE  CLOSED  SHOP  i83 

policy  ?'  Or  shall  we  admire  their  independence  and  nerve  in  their 
refusal  to  submit  to  the  terrorism  possible  only  because  of  the 
closed  shop? 

The  reason  some  of  the  builders  and  general  contractors  of 
New  York  City  endorse  the  closed  shop,  and  that  many  Buffalo 
general  contractors  and  labor  leaders  do  not  wish  (Buffalo  Com- 
mercial, December  27,  1920) ,  an  investigation  there,  may  be  made 
clear  by  the  following  quotation  (page  174)  from  Dr.  Frank 
Stockton's  book,  "The  Closed  Shop  In  American  Trade  Unions," 
published  by  Johns  Hopkins  University : 

Neither  employers  nor  unions  have  had  much  to  say  concerning 
the  advantage  of  "exclusive  agreements."  This  is  explained  by  the  fact 
that  such  agreements  are  generally  condemned  as  being  in  restraint  of  trade 
and  therefore  against  public  policy.  Employers  who  are  parties  to  them 
obtain  a  great  advantage  over  competitors  in  localities  where  the  unions 
are  strong,  since  they  secure  a  virtual  monopoly  of  the  labor  supply. 
*  *  *  But  while  the  closed  shop  under  such  conditions  may  be  an  advan- 
tage to  those  employers  with  whom  a  union  agrees  to  deal  exclusively, 
the  public  interest  suffers  inasmuch  as  competition  is  effectively  stifled. 

In  other  words,  the  closed  shop,  by  which  employers  agree  to 
employ  only  union  men,  is  used  to  raise  prices  to  the  general 
public.  The  closed  shop,  by  which  workers  can  be  refused  to 
employers  (even  where  they  are  willing  to  hire  union  men),  is  a 
powerful  weapon.  The  union's  ability  to  prevent  any  outsider 
from  getting  labor  in  a  psrticular  market  is  a  misuse  of  the  closer, 
shop  power  of  the  union  against  the  rights  of  the  general  public. 
If  it  were  not  for  the  closed  shop  and  this  power  to  prevent  out- 
siders from  getting  labor  the  employers  combinations  disclosed 
by  the  Lockwood  investigation  would  never  have  been  able  to 
force  a  practical  monopoly  in  their  various  trades.  The  logical 
development  of  the  closed  shop  idea  is  the  bargain  between  unions 
and  employers  to  exclude  workers  from  jobs  and  employers  from 
business. 

(From  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commis- 
sion, April  8,  1914,  of  Mr.  W.  J.  Spencer,  representing  the  build- 
ing trades  department  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 
Page  663  of  the  record.) 

COMMISSIONER  BALLAKD:  One  other  question  about  the  plumbers.  It 
has  been  suggested  that  perhaps  union  men  only  would  work  for  plumbers 
who  employed  union  men  exclusively,  and  those  plumbing  establishments 
would  be  the  only  ones  that  could  be  allowed  to  buy  plumbing  materials 
from  certain  of  these  large  manufacturing  establishments.  Is  there 
an  arrangement  of  that  character? 


184  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

MR.  SPENCER:  When  I  was  organizer  of  the  plumbing  association — 
the  national  association — I  found  that  to  be  quite  general — that  is,  I  found 
it  quite  frequently,  not  generally.  I  found  it  where  a  number  of  unions 
would  organize,  that  those  unions  would  organize  with  the  employers' 
associations,  and  they  would  agree  that  they  would  not  hire  non-union 
men  on  the  one  hand,  or  they  would  not  work  for  a  non-union  employer 
on  the  other  hand. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Walter  Gordon  Merritt,  then  counsel 
for  the  American  Anti-Boycott  Association,  at  present  counsel 
for  the  League  for  Industrial  Rights,  before  the  Industrial  Rela- 
tions Commission,  May  25,  1914.) 

Then  the  manufacturers — the  woodworkers'  association — who  also 
employ  members  of  the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  and  also 
members  of  the  Building  Trades  Employers'  Association,  entered  into 
an  agreement  with  the  carpenters,  that  they  would  run  union  shops  sub- 
ject to  union  scale,  provided  the  union  men  would  not  put  up  the  non- 
union material,  and  they  could  thereby  be  protected  from  open  shop 
competition.  That  is  the  condition  we  were  confronted  with  in  Man- 
hattan and  the  Bronx  at  the  time  our  litigation  commenced.  The  manu- 
facturers, the  woodworkers'  association,  employed  spies  to  go  around 
and  secure  information  as  to  where  non-union  men  were  being  used, 
and  furnished  that  information  to  the  union,  who  would  strike  the  job 
if  it  were  the  material  of  any  of  the  open  shops. 

There  are,  therefore,  two  suits  pending  in  Brooklyn  at  the  present  time 
now  awaiting  decision  before  the  Appellate  Division  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
One  is  the  suit  brought  by  Albro  J.  Newton  and  the  other  by  Louis 
Bossert  against  the  carpenters'  union.  The  Bossert  Co.  formerly  did 
a  business  of  half  a  million  dollars  across  the  river  here;  but  to-day  the 
open  shops  in  Brooklyn  who  manufacture  this  trim  do  not  know  what 
interborough  trade  is.  They  can  not  sell  it  across  the  river,  although 
they!  can  produce  it  at  prices  25  to  50  per  cent  under  the  union  shops. 

Now,  this  condition  in  the  building  trades,  which,  of  course,  is  for 
the  mutual  benefit  of  the  employers  and  employes,  is  satisfactory  to  a 
large  extent  to  those  parties  mutually  engaged  in  the  business,  is  being 
utilized  in  a  great  many  ways  to  the  detriment  of  the  outsider  who  is 
not  a  party  to  it.  One  of  the  favorite  schemes  is  for  the  employers  to 
instigate  strikes  against  a  competing  employer  who  does  not  conform 
to  their  standards  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  business  should  be  con- 
ducted. I  am  not  now  referring  to  the  wage  scale,  or  the  question  of  the 
union  or  the  open  shop,  but  I  am  referring  to  things  which  the  employer 
thinks  are  detrimental  to  his  business  and  wants  eradicated.  And  he 
finds  this  union  an  instrument,  by  which  they  have  a  complete  grip 
on  the  trades  of  New  York,  useful  to  him  in  eliminating  what  he  thinks 
is  competition  that  he  does  not  want  to  meet. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  In  other  words,  it  is  the  workingman  that  is 
used  as  the  battering  ram? 

MR.  MlERRriT:  In  a  great  many  of  these  cases  that  is  true.  In  the 
wood-trim  cases  it  is  the  master  carpenters  that  are  being  used  as  a 


COMPETITION  AND  THE  CLOSED  SHOP  185 

battering  ram.  But  all  these  agreements  are  give  and  take.  One  gives 
one  thing  and  one  gives  another,  and  it  makes  it  desirable  for  them 
to  come  together  for  mutual  protection  in  that  way,  regardless  of  what 
happens  to  the  public  or  the  outsider. 

Early  History  of  "Exclusive  Agreements" 

(From  "History  of  Labor  in  the  United  States"  by  Com- 
mons and  Associates.  Pages  32  and  33.  Written  by  John  B. 
Andrews,  of  the  American  Association  for  Labor  Legislation.) 

The  relatively  high  state  of  organization,  among  both  workmen  and 
employers,  demonstrated  to  each  element  the  advantages  of  united  action. 
And  it  naturally  suggested  the  next  step.  If  individual  workmen,  by  sub- 
merging their  little  differences  in  union  agreements,  secured  exclusive 
privileges  in  bargaining;  and  if  individual  employers  by  uniting  in  turn 
relieved  competition  among  themselves,  what  could  be  more  natural 
than  a  desire  to  unite  the  two  organized  elements  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  still  greater  benefits?  The  associated  employers  might  agree 
to  hire  none  but  union  men,  providing  the  union  men  would  agree  to 
work  exclusively  for  the  associated  employers. 

This  would  tend  to  force  outsiders  of  both  elements  into  the  organ- 
izations with  a  practical  monopoly  of  the  trade,  the  employers  could 
raise  wages  and  at  the  same  time  increase  profits  by  exacting  higher 
prices  from  the  public.  And  this  form  of  understanding,  now  notable 
in  the  building  trades  of  several  cities  under  the  name,  "exclusive  agree- 
ment," was  attempted  as  early  as  1865.  One  of  our  earliest  examples, 
too,  is  among  the  building  trades.  This  interesting  over-development  of 
the  trade  agreement  beyond  its  legitimate  scope  of  protecting  labor  and 
equalizing  the  competitive  labor  conditions  of  employers,  occurred  among 
the  bricklayers  of  Baltimore.  The  journeymen  bricklayers  of  this  city 
had  been  organized  nearly  a  year,  when,  in  spring  of  1865,  their  employers 
had  the  first  serious  trouble  in  arranging  satisfactory  terms.  About  the 
first  of  February  the  employers  received  official  information  of  an  intended 
demand  for  an  increase  in  wages.  This  increase  was  to  take  effect  April 
i.  They  were  invited  by  the  journeymen  to  attend  a  special  meeting  or 
conference  for  the  purpose  of  arranging  matters  to  the  satisfaction  of 
both  parties.  At  this  meeting  the  Master  Bricklayers'  Association  agreed 
to  continue  their  policy  of  employing  strictly  union  men.  After  the  jour- 
neymen had  withdrawn  from  the  conference  the  employers  revised  their 
old  scale  of  prices,  and  at  a  later  meeting  took  measures  to  secure  its 
general  enforcement  upon  the  building  public.  This  plan  was  reflected 
in  a'  resolution  requesting  the  journeymen  not  to  work  for  any  employer 
that  failed  to  join  the  employers'  association.  But  the  journeymen  refused 
to  do  this  on  the  ground  that  such  an  agreement  would  force  all  small 
contractors  to  abide  by  the  advanced  list.  They  felt  that  the  blame  for 
an  exorbitant  book  of  prices  would  be  thrown  upon  the  journeymen's 
union  by  the  Baltimore  public.  In  order  to  punish  them  for  this  refusal 
the  employers  reduced  the  wages  fifty  cents  per  day,  whereupon  the 
journeymen  struck.  The  disclosure  of  the  employers'  association  plan  for 
an  "exclusive  agreement"  came  to  light  during  the  strike. 


i86  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Increasing  Living  Costs 

Mr.  William  Green,  vice-president  of  the  American  Feder- 
ation of  Labor,  and  secretary-treasurer  of  the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers of  America,  in  a  letter  of  December  10  to  the  National  Labor 
Digest-  published  in  the  December,  1920,  issue,  says : 

In  accordance  with  unchangeable  economic  law,  labor  costs  become 
a  fixed  charge  upon  industry.  It  naturally  follows  that  the  labor  costs  of 
manufactured  articles  are  passed  on  to  the  consumer.  The  public  at 
large,  therefore,  pays  the  labor  cost  of  everything  manufactured. 

The  closed  shop,  which  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
is  back  of,  increases  these  "labor  costs"  which  are  "passed  on  to 
the  consumer."  The  public  pays  the  closed  shop  bill. 

Costs  are  increased  .by  (a)  union  laws  which  restrict  the 
amount  of  work  a  man  may  do  in  a  day ;  (b)  rules  which  limit  the 
number  of  apprentices,  thus  reducing  the  number  of  skilled. work- 
ers available,  which  means  that  unskilled  workers  must  be  used 
to  a  larger  extent,  thereby  increasing  the  cost  of  production;  (c) 
jurisdictional  and  sympathetic  disputes  and  strikes,  which  cause 
delays  and  interruptions,  increasing  the  manufacturing  costs;  (d) 
where  the  closed  shop  unions  are  strong  we  find  agreements  with 
small  groups  of  employers  by  which  other  employers  are  to  be 
refused  workers,  thus  stifling  competition  and  permitting  prices  to 
be  raised. 

The  public  should  bear  in  mind  this  statement  of  one  of  the 
vice-presidents  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  that,  "the 
labor  costs  of  manufactured  articles  are  passed  on  to  the  con- 
sumer." 

Mr.  Edward  A.  Keeler,  of  Albany,  secretary  of  the  New 
York  State  Association  of  Builders,  is  quoted  in  the  Rochester 
Democrat-Chronicle,  of  February  2,  1921,  as  saying: 

So  long  as  organized  labor  in  the  building  trades  *  *  *  maintains 
its  present  rules  in  limitations  of  production,  I  do  not  see  how  the  cost  of 
production,  I  do  not  see  how  the  cost  of  building  houses,  or  any  form 
of  construction  in  fact,  can  become  lower. 

Thus  are  rents  increased  and  kept  high. 

(Testimony  of  Mr.  James  Duncan,  president  of  the  Granite 
Cutters'  International  Association  of  America  and  first  vice-presi- 
dent of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  before  the  Industrial 
Relations  Commission,  April  16,  1914.  The  product  has  been 
cheapened  by  machinery,  the  introduction  of  which  was  formerly 


COMPETITION  AND  THE  CLOSED  SHOP  187 

opposed  by  the  unions.     They  now  oppose  the  introduction  of 
scientific  production  methods.) 

THE  ACTING  CHAIRMAN:  Has  the  laborer  gotten  any  of  the  advan- 
tage from  the  introduction  of  machinery? 

MR.  DUNCAN:  Well,  individually,  perhaps  not;  only  this,  if  it  might 
be  so-called,  more  constant  employment.  It  has  helped  cheapen  the 
finished  product,  and  the  finished  product  has  been  produced  more  per- 
fectly, which  has  given  them  additional  employment. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Frank  C.  Caldwell,  president  of  a 
large  engineering  company  in  Chicago,  before  the  Industrial  Rela- 
tions Commission,  July  25,  1914.  Page  3438  of  the  record. 
Would  be  easier  for  employers  to  adopt  the  closed  shop  and 
increase  prices  to  the  public.) 

Now,  I  say  that  the  opposition  and  the  antagonism  on  the  part  of 
the  employer  is,  I  think,  directed  not  at  the  union  as  such,  but  at  the  evils 
and  errors  that  are  in  such  organizations  as  we  know  them. 

And  I  want  to  say  this  also  on  behalf  of  the  employer:  I  think 
that  his  attitude  in  seeking  to  maintain  what  he  considers  right  economic 
conditions  is  by  no  means  a  selfish  opposition.  I  wish  to  make  the  point 
that  if  the  employer  were  simply  seeking  to  follow  his  own  selfish  ends, 
to  endeavor  to  earn  the  greatest  amount  of  money  with  the  least  possible 
friction  and  the  least  possible  annoyance  on  his  part,  he  might  very 
well  acquiesce  in  everything  that  a  union  should  demand  of  him  and 
pass  on  the  cost  to  the  consuming  public. 


i88  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Community  Benefits  of  the  Open  Shop 
Community  Benefits  Summarized 

(1)  The  merchants,  tradesmen  and  professional  men  benefit 
by  the  increased  total  wages  under  the  open  shop  caused  by  (a) 
greater  continuity  of  operations  with  less  unemployment;  and  (b) 
more  skilled  workers. 

(2)  Lower  prices  are  made  possible  by  decreased  manu- 
facturing costs.    Increased  industrial  output  and  wages  based  on 
ability  make  a  higher  standard  of  living. 

(3)  Competition  is  increased,  which  also  tends  to  decrease 
prices.     Agreements  by  closed  shop  leaders  to  supply  workers 
only  to  members  of  certain  employers'  associations,  thus  prevent- 
ing other  employers  from  getting  business,  are  impossible.    Such 
agreements  make  it  possible  for  the  members  of  these  employers 
associations  to  drive  other  employers  from  the  field  and  increase 
their  prices.  *  » 

(4)  Facts  and  figures  prove  that  open  shop  communities 
prosper  and  grow.    San  Francisco  is  a  "union"  town,  and  Detroit 
is  an  "open  shop"  town.     In  ten  years  Detroit's  wage  earners 
increased  from  39,373  to  81,011;  in  ten  years  San  Francisco's 
wage  earners  decreased  from  32,555  to  28,244. 

Taking  the  twenty  principal  cities  of  the  United  States  open 
shop  Indianapolis  has  the  lowest  "gross  debt"  and  the  second  low- 
est tax  rate  per  $1000.  Open  shop  Los  Angeles  has  the  lowest 
tax  rate  per  $1000*  assessed  valuation  of  property.  Closed  shop 
San  Francisco  was  tenth.  * 

The  three  towns  with  the  largest  population  percentage 
increases  from  1910  to  1920 — Akron,  Detroit,  and  Los  Angeles — 
are  all  strong  "open  shop"  towns. 

(5)  Communities  prosper  as  industries  come.  The  Employ- 
ers Association  of  Indianapolis  reports  that  in  1920  thirty-one  new 
industries,  largely  due  to  open  shop  conditions,  located  there. 
Many  industries  have  left  San  Francisco  because  of  the  restrictive 
union  domination.     The  Buffalo  Chamber  of  Commerce  reports 
that  open  shop  conditions  are  now  bringing  many  new  industries, 
which  will  employ  over  20,000  workers. 

(6)  The  lessening  of  friction  between  employers  and  walk- 
ing delegates,  and  the  decrease  of  sympathetic  strikes  and  juris- 


COMMUNITY  BENEFITS  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP  189 

dictional  disputes,  mean  less  injury  and  suffering  for  the  innocent 
bystanders,  the  public. 

Peace  and  Efficiency  Result 

The  closed  shop  means  interference  with  production.  Strikes 
are  far  more  apt  to  occur,  and  do  occur  more  often,  in  closed  shop 
establishments  than  in  open  shop  plants.  As  pointed  out  in  a  prev- 
ious chapter,  many  of  the  "walking  delegates"  find  it  advantageous 
either  to  foment,  or  at  least  not  to  discourage,  strife. 

Such  a  condition  is  conducive  neither  to  efficiency  or 
harmony  in  industry,  two  attributes  with  which  the  public  is 
vitally  concerned. 

Both  the  employers  and  the  employes  should  work  to  bring 
these  about,  and  are  responsible  to  the  public  for  their  failure  to 
do  so. 

Harmony  Follows  Open  Shop 

Christy  Thomas,  writing  in  the  Reviezv  of  Reviews  for 
November,  1920,  had  this  to  say  about  the  open  shop  policy  in 
Seattle : 

A  practical  result  of  the  new  condition  in  Seattle  is  that  thousands  of 
union  men  and  non-union  men  have  buried  their  differences  and  are  work- 
ing side  by  side  in  peace  in  the  city's  manufacturing  plants.  I  am  con- 
vinced from  recent  talks  by  both  employers  and  the  workers  there 
that  the  labor  situation  as  a  whole  is  constantly  improving.  In  a  number 
of  large  industries  where  only  union  men  are  employed  no  hint  of  trouble 
between  the  men  and  their  employers  is  being  found.  Labor,  in  these 
cases,  is  showing  not  only  a  dtesire  to  keep  at  work,  but  is  cooperating 
toward  the  common  goal — increased  production.  It  is  because  of  this 
that  capital  has  become  more  lenient  toward  labor,  which  is  now  rapidly 
regaining  much  of  its  old-time  efficiency. 

The  Associated  Industries  of  Tacoma  has  been  in  existence 
for  £  year.  Its  bulletin  of  October,  1920,  declares  that  between 
January  I  and  November  i,  1919,  Tacoma's  industries  suffered 
from  twelve  strikes,  resulting  in  wage  losses  of  $3,470,000  and 
losses  to  employers  estimated  at  $361,000.  Since  the  formation 
of  the  Associated  Industries,  which  supports  the  open  shop,  there 
have  been  four  strikes.  "The  year  which  has  passed  since  the 
formation  of  the  Association  has  been  one  of  almost  complete 
industrial  harmony  compared  with  the  preceding  twelve  months." 

Farmers  Favor*  Open  Shop 

Except  in  a  few  sections  of  the  country  where  the  I.  W.  W. 
is  especially  pernicious  the  faVmers  are  not  t  directly  concerned 
with  the  closed  shop.  But  the  strikes  of  the  past  few  years,  and 


OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 


the  revelations  of  the  immense  hold  over  industrial  life,  in  our 
cities,  that  rapacious  and  corrupt  labor  leaders  possess  has  niade 
all  true  American  citizens  aware  of  the  menace  involved  to 
American  ideals  and  institutions. 

The  National  Grange,  at  its  Fifty-fourth  Annual  Convention 
in  Boston,  November  18,  1920,  adopted  the  following  open  shop 
resolution  : 

We  disapprove  of  any  system  which  denies  to  any  individual  the 
right  to  work  in  any  place  where  there  is  need  of  his  industry  at  any 
time  and  at  any  wage  which  is  satisfactory  to  him,  or  to  quit  his  employ- 
ment wherever  and  for  whatever  reason  may  be  to  him  controlling,  sub- 
ject only  to  such  contract  obligations  as  he  may  willingly  enter  into 
and  as  may  be  imposed  in  an  American  court  of  justice. 

Let  Americans  Consider 

The  unemployment  problem  is  a  serious  one  to-day  in  Eng- 
land. The  Builders'  Union  has  refused  to  cooperate  with  non- 
unionists  in  the  construction  of  buildings.  The  Government  pro- 
posed that  the  building  trade  unions  should  absorb  50,000  unem- 
ployed ex-service  men.  The  unions  refused,  and,  according  to 
the  New  York  Times,  of  December  21,  1920,  the  Government 
consented  to  pay  the  unions  a  grant  for  every  ex-service  man 
accepted.  The  unions  refused.  Think  of  it!  Closed  shop  unions 
so  strong  that  the  Government  offers  to  pay  them  for  taking  ex- 
service  into'  their  ranks.  Do  we  want  this  in  America? 

The  Christian  Science  Monitor  of  January  20,  1921,  carried 
a  dispatch  from  Cape  Town,  Cape  Colony,  which  is  interesting. 
The  Minister  of  Labor  urged  employers  to  reduce  the  number  of 
unemployed  as  far  as  they  are  able,  and  then,  the  report  says  : 

The  Minister  directed  a  special  appeal  to  trade  unions  earnestly  to 
consider  whether  some  slight  relaxation  of  the  rules  or  customs  could  be 
adopted  whereby  some  of  those  men  might  be  employed  on  rough  or 
less  skilled  work  pertaining  to  their  particular  trade.  He  said  he  did 
not  propose  to  suggest  what  class  of  work  those  men  should  specifically 
perform,  but  would  be  pleased  to  have  suggestions  from  the  imions  if 
they  were  prepared  to  consider  some  relaxation.  That  there  is  a  short- 
age of  skilled  labor  in  certain  trades  is  well  known,  and  not  only  would 
this  scheme  provide  for  unskilled  workers,  but  in  some  instances  would 
improve  the  position  of  other  skilled  tradesmen. 

The  Minister  of  Labor  was  then  quoted  directly  as  saying: 
For  example,  if  more  boiler  workers  were  available,  or  if  the  boiler 
makers  would  agree  to  rougher  work  being  done  by  unskilled  or  semi- 
skilled men,  an  immediate  demand  would  be  created  for  fitters  and  other 


COMMUNITY  BENEFITS  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP  191 

tradesmen  who  are  not  so  fully  employed.  If  carpenters  and  bricklayers 
could  suggest  some  relaxation,  then  many  painters  and  masons  would 
be  provided  for. 

Let  America  take  a  lesson  from  such  examples.  The  nation- 
wide success  of  the  closed  shop  would  bring  about  just  such 
conditions  in  the  United  States.  It  would  be  a  disgrace  to  the 
memories  of  the  men  who  have  given  their  lives  for  American 
freedom  to  see  an  American  public  official  begging  the  leaders  of 
a  labor  organization  to  let  unemployed  workers  earn  their  living. 

The  Iron  Trade  Review  of  December  23,  1920,  quotes  the 
following  from  a  letter  of  September  i,  1920,  from  the  Secretary 
of  War  to  the  Chief  of  Ordnance. 

No  government  arsenal  can  be  a  closed  union  shop.  The  government 
of  the  United  States  is  the  creature  and  representative  of  all  the  people 
in  the  United  States.  Its  public  institutions  are  for  the  use  of  the 
whole  people;  its  operatives  and  employes  must  be  freely  drawn  from 
those  who  are  qualified  by  skill  and  character  without  reference  to  their 
membership  in  unofficial  trade  organizations,  membership  in  which  is 
voluntary,  so  far  as  the  government  is  concerned,  and  should  not  be  made 
compulsory  either  by  law  or  by  exclusion  from  opportunity,  which  would 
have  the  effect  of  law. 

Would  that  other  government  departments  adopted  the  same 
attitude!  The  printing  trades  unions  have  enforced  the  closed 
shop  in  the  United  States  Government  Printing  Office.  During 
the  war  the  railway  brotherhoods  received  official  recognition 
from  the  Federal  Government.  In  several  states  the  union  label 
is  required  on  all  state  printing. 

At  least  one  state  legislature  does  not  always  bend  the  knee. 
The  Minnesota  State  Senate  on  January  14,  1921,  voted  46  to  16 
against  requiring  the  union  label  on  state  printing. 

(From  an  address  of  James  A.  Emery,  general  counsel  of  the 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  before  the  Chicago 
Association  of  Commerce,  February  2,  1921.  Open  shop  plants 
were  capable  of  providing  war  supplies.) 

The  greatest  demonstration  of  the  value  of  the  principle  I  assert 
can  be  found  in  the  comparison  with  the  conditions  under  which  another 
nation  entered  the  war,  because  nothing  so  surely  overtakes  antebellum 
theories  as  postbellum  facts.  Wihen  we  entered  this  great  struggle,  the 
naval  consulting  board  of  the  United  States  had  made  a  survey  which  was 
placed  at  the  disposition  of  the  Council  of  National  Defense  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  the  capacity  of  the  United  States  for  munition 
production. 

The  report  back  on  its  first  survey,  made  substantially  four  months 


IQ2  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

before  we  entered  the  war,  was  that  of  the  18,654  industrial  establish- 
ments capable  of  munition  production,  substantially  ten  per  cent  operated 
under  union  conditions  and  in  the  great  fundamental  industries  upon 
which  the  construction  of  ships,  of  great  guns  and  of  the  more  funda- 
mental requirements  of  military  defense  rested,  that  less  than  four  per 
cent  operated  under  union  conditions. 

Won't  Drive  Away  Business 

Dudley  Taylor,  president  of  the  Employers'  Association  of 
Chicago,  said  on  December  ipth,  1920: 

Next  to  New  York,  this  city  is  the  worst  dominated  of  any  in  the 
country.  Many  manufacturers  refuse  to  operate  plants  here  because  oj: 
labor  conditions.  One  of  our  large  manufacturers  recently  moved  to 
another  city  because  of  the  intolerable  conditions  here. 

One  local  manufacturer  has  plans  all  drawn  for  an  addition  to  cost 
$1,000,000,  as  soon  as  he  is  assured  that  he  may  operate  his  business  as 
he  sees  fit  '•  ;|  •>:,  •  [gj^j 

To  cite  one  case:  Recently  a  corporation,  using  union  teamsters 
exclusively,  received  some  machinery.  One  of  their  union  teamsters  hauled 
it  from  the  freight  station. 

It  so  happened  that  there  is  a  special  union  for  the  hauling  of  this 
particular  kind  of  machinery.  Because  one  of  the  members  of  this  union 
did  not  convey  the  goods,  the  corporation  was  fined  $1,500,  and  paid  it 
after  threats  were  made. 

The  Gains  of  a  Year 

The  recently  issued  annual  report  of  the  Dallas  Chamber  of 
Commerce  describes  as  follows  the  progress  of  Dallas  since  the 
inauguration  of  the  open  shop  policies  in  the  industries  of  the 
city: 

In  its  efforts  to  promote  the  industrial  growth  and  welfare  of  Dallas, 
a  year  of  practical  operation  shows  conclusively  that  one  of  the  most 
important  accomplishments  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  was  in  the 
organization  of  the  Dallas  Open  Shop  (Square  Deal)  Association  in 
November,  1919,  and  later  in  placing  this  body  on  a  firm  and  permanent 
working  basis  with  the  full  backing  and  support  of  the  Chamber. 

Developments  here  and  throughout  the  nation  prove  that  the  greatest 
inducement  any  city  can  offer  for  the  location  of  new  industries  is  stable 
open  shop  working  conditions.  When  the  membership  of  the  Chamber 
voted  to  form  an  open  shop  organization,  Dallas  had  for  a  long  time 
been  under  the  domination  of  radical  labor  unionism;  practically  all 
building  operations  were  conducted  on  the  closed  shop  basis  and  had  been 
at  a  standstill  on  account  of  sympathetic  strikes  for  some  three  months. 
Employers  of  labor  were  absolutely  subject  to  the  rules  and  regulations 
of  the  labor  unions  and  were  compelled  to  yield  every  point  to  the  whims 
and  arrogance  of  the  "walking  delegate." 

To-day  the  Dallas  Open  Shop  Association  has  a  sustaining  membership 


COMMUNITY  BENEFITS  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP  193 

of  nearly  700,  including  most  of  our  leading  financial,  industrial  and  com- 
mercial establishments,  and  an  annual  budget  of  over  $25,000.  Dallas 
building  permits  during  the  first  nine  months  of  1920  showed  an  increase 
of  40  per  cent  over  a  corresponding  period  last  year  as  compared  with  a 
sharp  decrease  in  practically  all  other  important  cities  of  the  nation. 

Our  official  records  show  that  the  great  majority  of  all  building 
permits  taken  out  during  the  past  year  are  for  construction  on  the  open 
shop  basis.  Our  Free  Employment  Bureau  has  placed  4,748  people  in 
paying  positions  from  January  20,  1920,  to  December  7,  1920.  As  many 
of  these  men  moved  here  from  other  cities  with  their  families,  this  means 
an  addition  of  several  thousand  to  our  population. 

There .  has  been  no  strike  in  the  building  industry  here  since  the 
inauguration  of  the  open  shop,  a  condition  unheard  of  before  the  organiza- 
tion of  this  body.  During  1919  there  was  3,232  strikes  of  record  in  the 
United  States,  affecting  3,950,000  workers.  With  an  average  of  thirty- 
four  days  to  a  strike  this  meant  a  loss  of  134,300,000  working  days, 
with  a  wage  loss  of  more  than  $800,000,000,  to  say  nothing  of  the  loss 
to  industry  and  inconvenience  to  the  people  of  the  nation  as  a  whole. 
These  strikes  made  possible  the  very  thing  vhich  workers  are  crying  out 
against,  profiteering.  Strikes  will  dimmish  and  practically  disappear 
throughout  the  nation  when  our  open  shop  plan  of  business  operation 
becomes  the  universal  reality  which  is  its  destiny. 

The  New  Sky  Line  of  January  I,  1921,  describes  the  progress 
Little  Rock  has  made  since  the  open  shop  declaration  of  Decem- 
ber, 1919: 

At  that  time  this  city  was  a  galvanized  union  labor  town,  especially 
in  the  building  trades,  the  building  trades  council  having  a  strangle  hold 
on  practically  all  building  operations.  More  than  2,000  business  men, 
firms  and  individuals,  endorsed  and  supported  the  open  shop  move- 
ment. Since  that  time  building  permits  have  increased,  building  operations 
have  gone  on  undisturbed  by  strikes,  more  than  90  per  cent  of  the  building 
permits  have  been  followed  by  open  shop  construction ;  the  building  trades 
council  has  dissembled  and  gone  out  of  business,  and  the  open  shop  has 
been  absolutely  established  in  the  building  trades  in  Little  Rock.  The 
local  building  trades  unions  are  giving  no  trouble,  and  you  would  hardly 
know  they  were  in  existence.  The  union  members  are  working  on  open 
shop  work,  on  the  same  jobs  with  non-union  men,  and  labor  disturbances 
are  a  thing  of  the  past.  The  free  employment  bureau  has  obtained  profit- 
able employment  for  a  greater  number  of  men  in  proportion  to  the 
population  than  was  shown  in  Dallas,  and  the  character  of  work  shows 
marked  efficiency  in  contrast  with  the  inefficiency  and  low  output  prior 
to  the  open  shop  declaration.  The  wage  scales  have  been  maintained 
and  the  production  cost  has  materially  decreased.  A  little  more  than  a 
year  ago  the  bricklayers'  union  in  negotiating  a  contract,  held  that  800 
bricks  laid  in  the  wall  was  a  fair  day's  work.  Under  open  shop  opera- 
tions bricklayers  have  laid  over  2,000  bricks  per  day.  This  is  an  evidence 
of  the  increased  production  obtained  under  the  open  shop  plan. 

The  most  creditable  part  of  the  open  shop  movement  in  Little  Rock 


194  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

is  that  there  has  never  been  any  discrimination  between  union  and  non- 
union labor,  nor  a  disposition  among  the  contractors  to  lessen  the  wage 
scales  or  impose  any  changes  in  the  working  conditions  to  the  disad- 
vantage of  the  workers.  The  open  shop  plan  has  offered  better  opportu- 
nities to  the  workmen  than  the  closed  shop,  and  the  men  have  been 
paid  upon  a  basis  of  what  they  were  able  and  willing  to  do  the  result 
being  highly  satisfactory  to  all  parties  concerned,  and  resulting  in  more 
and  better  work  at  a  less  cost  to  the  contractors  and  builders.  Within 
six  months  after  the  open  shop  declaration  the  open  shop  was  virtually 
established  in  Little  Rock,  and  a  report  made  as  early  as  last  June 
showed  over  90  per  cent  of  the  work  under  construction  to  be  under  the 
open  shop.  These  things  are  not  recounted  to  show  by  contrast  that  Dallas 
has  not  done  well  in  the  open  shop  movement,  or  in  a  spirit  of  boastful- 
ness  over  what  has  been  accomplished  in  this  city,  but  rather  to  show 
that  the  movement  in  general  is  founded  on  a  solid  basis,  and  that 
there  is  solidarity  in  the  public  sentiment  behind  the  movement  in  Little 
Rock.  The  real  reason  for  the  success  of  the  movement  both  in  Dallas 
and  Little  Rock,  and  elsewhere  as  well,  is  because  the  open  shop  move- 
ment is  American  in  spirit,  and  is  fundamentally  sound  in  principle. 

A  recent  survey  of  open  shop  conditions  in  761  Seattle  firms, 
with  26,210  employes,  shows  that  91  per  cent  are  open  shops, 
and  9  per  cent  are  closed  shops.  A  little  over  a  year  ago  Seattle 
was  over  75  per  cent  closed  shop. 

Facts  and  Figures 

Indianapolis  was  the  twenty-second  city  in  1910.  In  1920 
it  is  the  twenty-first.  Its  population  is  now  314,794,  an  increase 
of  80,544  or  thirty-five  per  cent  since  1910.  The  Employers' 
Association  of  Indianapolis  reports :  "Thirty-one  new  industries 
have  actually  located  here  since  January  I,  1920,  due  largely  to 
open  shop  conditions." 

Of  twenty  principal  cities  of  the  United  States,  according 
to  figures  prepared  by  the  Daily  Bond  Buyer  of  New  York  (an 
authority  on  municipal  statistics),  Indianapolis  has  the  lowest 
"gross  debt,"  the  second  lowest  tax  rate  per  $1,000;  stands  fourth 
with  respect  to  the  "gross  debt  per  capita." 

Los  Angeles,  another  open  shop  town,  has  the  lowest  tax 
rate  per  $1,000  assessed  valuation  of  property. 

The  New  York  Tribune  on  June  6,  1920,  said :  "In  the  ten 
years  that  have  elapsed  since  the  last  census  Los  Angeles  has 
seized  the  crown  from  San  Francisco  and  become  the  leading 
city  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

"What  is  the  answer  to  this  upset  in  the  relative  positions  of  the  two 
cities  in  the  last  ten  years.  Why  has  Los  Angeles  so  far  outstripped  her 
northern  rival?  The  answer  lies  in  the  labor  problem.  Los  Angeles  has 


COMMUNITY  BENEFITS  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP  195 

embraced  the  open  shop  principle,  while  San  Francisco  has  placed  her- 
self under  the  dictation  of  organized  labor,  and  Los  Angeles  has  grown 
and .  prospered  while  San  Francisco  has  stood  still  when  she  has  not 
gone  backward." 

"The  open  shop  principle  has  worked  so  successfully  in  Los  Angeles 
that  it  has  been  adopted  in  Santa  Barbara,  San  Pedro,  Phoenix,  and  other 
important  cities;  Phoenix  having  but  recently  declared  herself  for  the 
open  shop  after  borrowing  the  fundamentals  of  the  plan  from  Los  Ange- 
les." 

While  Los  Angeles  had  the  lowest  tax  rate  per  $1,000  of 
assessed  valuation,  San  Francisco  was  tenth. 

Even  San  Francisco  papers  recognize  the  benefit  the  open 
shop  has  been  to  Los  Angeles.  Thus,  the  Journal  of  Commerce 
on  September  7th,  1920,  said: 

"The  announced  determination  of  a  large  shipbuilding  company  to 
remove  its  works  to  Los  Angeles,  chiefly  on  account  of  unsatisfactory  labor 
conditions  in  the  bay  region  is  only  another  illustration  of  killing  the 
goose  that  lays  the  golden  egg.  This  is  by  no  means  the  only  case 
of  large  industries  forsaking  San  Francisco  to  locate  in  the  southern 
city,  for  the  same  cause.  Los  Angeles  is  building  up  a  manufacturing 
center  which  has  made  it  the  most  popular  city  of  the  Pacific  Coast.  This 
is  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  all  natural  conditions  appear  to  be  in  favor 
of  San  Francisco. 

"This  is  one  of  the  fruits  of  Union  Labor  domination  carried  to 
extremes.  With  cheaper  living  conditions,  and  more  continuous  employ- 
ment, Los  Angeles  offers  the  worker  more  inducement  than  he  can  find 
in  San  Francisco.  *  *  *  No  one  can  truthfully  say  that  Los  Angeles  is 
prospering  at  our  expense  by  robbing  the  worker.  It  is  not  true.  In 
Los  Angeles  the  condition  of  the  worker  probably  averages  better  than 
it  does  in  this  city.  That  is  not  because  wages  are  more  in  dollars,  but 
because  prices  being  lower,  the  wage  dollars  will  buy  more  of  the  com- 
forts of  life.  Stability  in  labor  conditions  is  more  to  be  desired  by  the 
employer  than  anything  else.  He  wants  to  know  that  he  can  depend 
upon  getting  a  dollar's  worth  of  work  done  for  each  dollar  he  pays  in 
wages,  and  that  he  will  not  be  put  to  inconvenience  and  loss  by  frequent 
and  unjustifiable  strikes.  The  employer  requires  a  condition  where  he 
knows  that  he  is  in  command  of  his  own  shop  and  does  not  have  to  bow 
to  the  dictation  of  hostile  outside  and  sometimes  rival  forces. 

"These  conditions  must  be  brought  about  in  San  Francisco,  if  the 
place  is  to  prosper  as  it  should.  They  can  only  be  won  through  the  open 
shop.  To  that  policy  the  efforts  of  the  entire  business  community  should 
be  directed.  The  Journal  of  Commerce  stands  firmly  for  the  open  shop 
as  the  only  just  and  legal  relationship  that  can  flourish." 

From  1899  to  1914,  before  the  war,  the  number  of  Los 
Angeles  wage-earners  increased  26,179;  in  San  Francisco  the 
increase  was  797. 


196  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

I.  H.  Rice,  president  of  the  Merchants'  and  Manufacturers' 
Association  of  Los  Angeles  says  (in  Manufacturers  Record,  July 
29,  1920)  : 

"The  census  figures  of  this  city  unquestionably  have  an  eloquent 
story  to  tell  the  closed  shop  towns  of  this  country.  We  have  the  advan- 
tage of  the  open  shop  exemplified  in  the  fact  that  many  industries  have 
come  here  from  San  Francisco  in  recent  years  because  we  are  able  to 
offer  them  freedom  from  industrial  unrest." 

Current  Opinion  for  August  says :  "One  indication  of  what  the 
open  shop  has  done  for  the  Southern  California  city  is  that  in  a  circum- 
ference of  five  square  blocks,  ten  class  A  office  buildings  are  now  in  the 
course  of  construction  or  are  shortly  to  be  started." 

The  Goodyear  Tire  and  Rubber  Company  just  completed  a 
few  months  ago  a  $10,000,000  plant  in  Los  Angeles  which  will 
employ  several  thousand  workers.  The  president  of  the  com- 
pany declares  that  Los  Angeles  was  selected  because  it  is  an 
open -shop  city. 

Los  Angeles  had  the  third  greatest  population  percentage 
increase  in  the  last  decade  of  the  large  cities — 80.3  per  cent. 
Akron,  Ohio,  which  increased  201.8  per  cent  and  Detroit,  which 
increased  113.4  per  cent,  ranking  first  and  second,  are  both  strong 
"open  shop"  centers.  The  increase  in  "closed  shop"  San  Francisco 
was  21.9  per  cent. 

In  Dallas,  Texas,  which  had  the  fifth  largest  increase,  an 
Open  Shop  Association  was  organized  a  little  over  a  year  ago. 
Before  its  organization  $8,000,000  worth  of  building  construction 
was  being  tied  up  by  labor  troubles ;  such  difficulties  have  ceased 
under  the  new  open  shop  policy. 

With  regard  to  Akron  the  Manufacturers  Record  of  July 
29,  1920,  says: 

"There  are  now  nearly  30  tire  and  rubber  factories;  all  of  them  on 
an  open-shop  basis.  The  triumph  of  the  open  shop  in  Akron  came  only 
after  a  long  and  bitter  struggle,  chiefly  between  the  years  1913  and  1915. 
At  the  present  time  the  rubber  workers  are  not  unionized;  the  workmen 
are  paid  on  a  liberal  basic  wage  under  the  piecework  system,  which  offers  a 
genuine  stimulus  to  individual  effort.  And  these  workmen  are  declared 
to  be  both  contented  and  decidedly  prosperous." 

The  Open  Shop  Review  for  October,  1920  quotes  the 
Oklahoma  Employer-' 

"The  population  of  Danbury,  Connecticut,  has  decreased  6.6  per  cent 
since  1910,  according  to  the  United  'States  Census  figures,  and  impartial 
observers  there,  according  to  the  newspapers,  assert  that  Danbury's  popu- 
lation would  have  increased  at  least  10  per  cent  had  it  not  been  for  the 


COMMUNITY  BENEFITS  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP 197 

disastrous  hatters'  strike.  The  effects  of  that  strike,  they  say,  are  still 
felt  by  every  industry  in  the  community.  This  appears  to  be  the  result 
of  long  strikes  everywhere." 

Open  Shop  Detroit,  which  had  the  second  largest  increase  in 
population,  has  the  fifth  smallest  gross  debt  in  the  United 
States;  has  the  third  lowest  tax  rate  per  $1,000  of  assessed 
valuation  (the  three  lowest  cities  are  all  "open  shop"  towns)  ; 
only  four  towns  have  a  lower  per  capita  gross  debt  or  net  debt. 

In  the  New  York  Daily  News  Record  of  November  9,  1920, 
appears  the  story  of  the  success  of  the  open  shop  in  Buffalo. 
The  movement  has  progressed  until  now  over  fifty  per  cent  of 
the  chief  industries  of  the  city  are  operating  on  the  open  shop 
plan;  these  include  the  clothing  manufacturers,  merchant  tailors, 
silk  and  knitting  mills,  neckwear  manufacturers,  corset  manufac- 
turers, and  many  others. 

According  to  prominent  employers,  production  in  the  garment 
and  textile  industries  hasi  greatly  increased  since  the  open  shop 
was  established. 

The  Chamber  of  Commerce  says  that  largely  as  a  result  of 
the  establishment  of  the  open  shop,  many  new  industries  have 
come  to  Buffalo.  They  are  spending  $100,000,000  and  will  employ 
over  20,000  workers  in  the  Buffalo  district. 

Industrial  Paterson,  the  official  bulletin  of  the  Associated 
Industries  of  Paterson,  says  in  its  issue  of  December  24,  1920, 
that  from  1910  to  1920  the  population  of  Paterson  increased 
only  8.2  per  cent.  This  is  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  Paterson  has 
been  a  "Closed  Shop"  city. 

The  Los  Angeles  Times  of  December  12,  1920,  says  that  Los 
Angeles  is  now  the  tenth  American  city  in  industrial  importance. 
It  was  the  twenty-sixth  city  in  1914.  Los  Angeles  is  now  "the 
greatest  clothing  producer  west  of  Chicago,"  and  "the  greatest 
fishing  port  in  the  United  States."  Los  Angeles  has  been  an  open 
shop  city  for  years. 

The  Survey,  a  strong  closed  shop  supporter,  in  its  November 
6,  1920  issue  reviewed  the  record  of  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan, 
an  open  shop  city,  since  the  local  establishment  of  Prohibition 
April  30,  1918.  "Grand  Rapids  has  never  had  a  large  class  of 
desperately  poor  families."  It  is  stated  on  Page  184  that  Grand 
Rapids  is  the  "second  American  city1  in  per  cent  of  home  owner- 
ship" and  that  there  has  been  "no  serious  labor  disturbance  since 
1912."  Wa^res,  it  is  stated  on  Pagre  186,  have  "advanced  faster 
than  prices"  and  freedom  from  serious  strikes  or  lockouts  *  *  * 
has  reinforced  the  result  of  higher  wages." 


198  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

The  Rights  of  Independent  Labor 

The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  is  confident  that 
when  the  public  understands  the  true  nature  of  the  closed  shop 
with  its  restrictive  rules,  limitations  upon  efficiency  and  inherent 
creation  of  distrust  and  discord  that  the  public  will  fully  support 
the  open  shop,  which  means  that  "the  doors  of  no  industry  be 
closed  against  American  workmen  because  of  their  membership 
or  non-membership  in  any  labor  organization."  We  will  force 
no  American  workman  and  citizen  to  join  with  and  accept  the 
principles  of  labor  organizations  which  for  any  reason  he  does 
not  subscribe  to  or  believe  in. 

(From  an  article  on  "The  Extent  of  Trade  Unionism,"  by 
Dr.  Leo  Wolman,  of  the  University  of  Michigan;  in  the  Ameri- 
can Labor  Year  Book,  1917-1918.  Dr.  Wolman's  estimates  as  to 
the  extent  of  trade  unionism  in  "organizable"  trades  are  the  most 
liberal,  probably,  which  have  been  made.  They  may  be  said  to 
represent  the  extreme  claims  of  the  closed-shop  advocates,  and 
show  that  81.6  per  cent  of  workers  are  not  members  of  trade 
unions  .  Shall  the  great  majority  be  coerced?) 

Accordingly,  the  most  conservative  survey  of  the  situation  would 
indicate  that  in  the  United  States  in  1910,  92.3  per  cent  of  the  wage- 
earners  were  unorganized;  whereas  the  most  liberal  estimates  would  show 
that  81.6  per  cent  of  those  persons  who  are  susceptible  of  organization 
were  without  the  trade  unions. 

(From  a  decision  of  Judge  Webster  Thayer,  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Superior  Criminal  Court,  November  16,  1920.) 

*  *  *  This  is  a  very  important  case  for  disposition.  This  case  becomes 
important,  not  because  of  the  injuries  inflicted,  but  rather  on  account  of 
the  great  principle  involved ;  a  principle  that  affects  the  rights  and  liber- 
ties of  every  individual  in  the  Commonwealth  as  well  as  society  itself. 
It  was  a  serious  blow  inflicted  by  this  defendant  which  tended  in  its  effect 
to  undermine  and  uproot  that  cardinal  principle  of  the  Constitution  that 
guarantees  to  every  individual  protection  in  his  rights  of  liberty  and 
property. 

No  state,  excepting  under  its  police  power  can  enact  a  law  that  will 
deprive  a  person  of  his  life,  liberty  or  property.  If  the  state  cannot  do 
it,  how  foolish  to  think  that  an  individual  or  a  group  of  individuals  can. 
No  question  of  human  life  is  involved  in  the  case  at  bar,  but  the  rights 
of  liberty  and  property  have  been  seriously  assaulted.  By  liberty  we 
mean  liberty  of  contract  as  well  as  the  liberty  of  person;  a  liberty  of 
going  where  one  sees  fit  to  go  and  the  liberty  of  contracting  with  whom- 
soever one  desires  to  contract,  and  to  contract  concerning  any  subject 
matter  he  wishes  to  contract,  providing  ones  going  is  lawful  and  his  con- 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  INDEPENDENT  LABOR  199 

tracting  is  not  unlawful  or  in  contravention  of  public  policy.    PROPERTY  C 
INCLUDES   NOT  ONLY  THINGS   TANGIBLE,   BUT  ALSO  THE  > 
RIGHT  TO  WORK.    Therefore  the  right  to  work  wheresoever  and  for  \ 
whomsoever  a  person  sees  fit  should  be  respected  and  cherished  as  sacredly 
as  property  as  the  house  in  which  one  resides.  *  *  * 

Plea  of  Independent  Workers 

We  submit  to  any  interested  parties  the  report  of  the  Anthra- 
cite Coal  Strike  Commission  of  1902,  the  publication  of  which, 
through  the  efforts  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  was 
limited,  and  to  the  testimony  given  before  the  President's  Com- 
mission by  the  non-union  mine  workers.  These  men  demanded 
increased  wages  rather  than  decrease  of  hours  of  labor  and  insisted 
on  the  right  to  work  as  many  hours  as  they  choose  and  for  an 
opportunity  to  better  their  condition  and  increase  their  earning 
capacity.  From  their  plea  before  the  Commission  we  quote  as 
follows : 

"We  believe  it  to  be  an  inalienable  and  undoubted  right  to  work  when 
we  can  obtain  it,  and  to  receive  as  compensation  for  it  the  best  price  we 
can  obtain.  And  we  further  believe  that  the  laws  of  the  land  vouchsafe 
to  us  protection  from  insult,  outrage,  violence,  molestation  or  interference 
in  the  performance  of  our  labors,  and  in  order  that  we  shall  not  be  dis- 
turbed in  the  free  and  full  exercise  of  these  rights,  we  most  respectfully 
urge  that  the  assertion  of  them  be  made  a  part  of  the  finding  in  this  pro- 
ceeding. 

"In  our  effort  to  earn  a  livelihood  for  ourselves,  our  families  and 
those  dependent  upon  us,  we  have  been  most  outrageously  interfered  with. 
Our  homes  have  been  assulted,  and  the  lives  of  ourselves  and  those 
dear  to  us  threatened.  On  our  way  to  and  from  work  we  have  been 
stoned,  clubbed,  beaten,  insulted,  jeered  at,  and  the  same  course  of  out- 
rageous treatment  has  attended  us  at  our  places  of  employment. 

"And  this  serious  and  outrageous  course  of  conduct  toward  us  was 
by  no  means  confined  to  our  homes  and  places  of  employment.  It  fol- 
lowed us  everywhere.  We  have  been  hung  in  effigy  in  public  places.  The 
vicious  and  unlawful  boycott  has  been  practiced  to  such  an  extent  upon 
us,  that  merchants  dealing  in  the  necessaries  of  life  have  been  forbidden 
to  furnish  us,  even  with  food  and  clothing.  In  church  where  we  worship, 
the  service  has  been  interrupted  by  members  of  the  union  because  of  our 
presence  there.  Our  names  have  been  published  in  conspicuous  places  as 
being  'unfair'  and  enemies  to  labor.  In  very  many  instances  we  have  been 
obliged  to  stop  work  on  account  of  fear,  and  we  have  been  in  constant 
terror.  All  kinds  of  crimes,  even  murder  of  our  comrades  and  fellow- 
workmen,  have  been  committed,  for  no  other  reason  than  that  we  insisted 
upon  our  right  to  work,  and  against  this  course  of  conduct  we  emphati- 
cally protest." 

The  above  is  taken  from  pages  95  and  96  of  the  official  report. 


20O  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

(From  "Labor  in  Politics,"  by  Charles  Norman  Fay.  Pages 
J52-I54-) 

Many  thousands  of  laboring  men  prefer  their  independence  and 
refuse  to  be  held  up  for  union  dues.  Many  hundreds  of  employers,  though 
the  majority  are  indifferent,  refuse  to  contract  for  the  closed  shop;  some 
as  a  mere  matter  of  business  policy,  but  many  more,  in  my  observation, 
because  they  refuse  to  betray  the  constitutional  right  of  every  man, 
employer  or  laborer  to  hire  or  work  without  the  dictation  of  any  other 
man  or  group  of  men.  One  of  the  largest  employers  in  Boston,  lately 
said  to  me,  that  he  would  lose  every  dollar  he  had  invested,  and  if  necesr 
sary  would  die  for  the  "open  shop,"  as  a  true  American.  He  employs 
thousands  of  men  without  regard  to  union  or  non-union  membership. 
My  own  feeling  was  just  the  same  when  I  was  an  employer,  that  I  would 
never  be  party  to  taking  advantage  of  the  necessity  of  a  workingman, 
to  compel  him  to  pay  tribute  to  a  union,  in  order  to  qualify  for  employ- 
ment in  my  shop.  I  have  shown  elsewhere  how  in  the  course  of  a  strike 
in  my  own  factory  we  discovered  a  strong  preference  among  workers  in 
Chicago  for  the  strictly  non-union  shop.  The  sentiment  for  liberty  pre- 
vailed. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  after  all  a  matter  of  business  interest  to  close  his 
shop  to  non-union  labor,  or  to  union  labor,  or  to  maintain  an  open  shop 
to  both.  He  has  an  absolute  right  to  do  so,  and  to  put  sentiment  aside.  I 
cannot  believe,  however,  that  any  intelligent  and  conscientious  clergyman, 
who  ought  by  virtue  of  his  profession  to  put  sentiment  ahead  of  business 
considerations,  would,  if  he  understood  the  matter,  favor  forcing  the  free 
workman  against  his  will  to  wear  the  collar  or  pay  the  tribute  decreed  for 
him  by  the  local  union.  Our  courts  of  highest  resort  have  uniformly 
restrained  the  attempt  to  monopolize  labor  by  virtue  of  "collective  bar- 
gaining" and  the  "closed  shop,"  as  an  invasion  of  constitutional  right.  I 
am  glad  to  accept  Judge  Gary's  maintenance  of  the  open  shop  in  the 
great  steel  industry,  as  dictated  by  love  of  American  freedom  as  well 
as  sound  business  judgment.  I  would  urge  the  pulpit  not  ignorantly  to 
condemn  the  law  and  the  bench,  but  to  study  with  open  mind  as  well  as 
open  heart  the  intent  and  the  result  of  bringing  all  industry  within  the 
grasp  of  a  labor  autocracy,  the  dream  of  Organized  Labor. 

No  Tolerance  of  Tyranny 

(From  Report  of  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission, 
appointed  by  President  Roosevelt,  in  1903.) 

To  say  this  is  not  to  deny  the  legal  right  of  any  man  or  set  of  men 
voluntarily  to  refrain  from  social  intercourse  or  business  relations  with 
any  persons  who  he  or  they,  with  or  without  good  reason,  dislike.  This 
may  sometimes  be  un-Christian,  but  it  is  not  illegal.  But  when  it  is  a 
concerted  purpose  of  a  number  of  persons,  not  only  to  abstain  them- 
selves from  such  intercourse,  but  to  render  the  life  of  their  victim  mis- 
erable by  persuading  and  intimidating  others  so  to  refrain,  such  purpose 
is  a  malicious  one,  and  the  concerted  attempt  to  accomplish  it  is  a  con- 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  INDEPENDENT  LABOR  201 

spiracy  at  common  law  and  should  receive  the  punishment  due  to  such  a 
crime. 

Examples  of  such  "secondary  boycotts"  are  not  wanting  in  the  record 
of  the  case  before  the  commission.  A  young  school  mistress  of  intelligence, 
character,  and  attainments  was  so  boycotted  and  her  dismissal  from 
employment  compelled  for  no  other  reason  than  that  a  brother,  not  living 
in  her  immediate  family,  chose  to  work  contrary  to  the  wishes  and  will 
of  the  striking  miners.  A  lad  about  15  years  old,  employed  in  a  drug 
store,  was  discharged  owing  to  threats  made  to  his  employer  by  a  delega- 
tion of  the  strikers,  on  behalf  of  their  organization,  for  the  reason  that 
his  father  had  chosen  to  return  to  work  before  the  strike  was  ended.  In 
several  instances  tradesmen  were  threatened  with  a  boycott — that  is,  that 
all  connected  with  the  strikers  would  withhold  from  them  their  custom 
and  persuade  others  to  do  so  if  they  continued  to  furnish  the  necessaries 
of  life  to  the  families  of  certain  workmen  who  had  come  under  the  ban 
of  displeasure  of  the  striking  organizations.  This  was  carrying  the  boy- 
cott to  an  extent  which  was  condemned  by  Mr.  Mitchell,  president  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  in  his  testimony  before  the  commis- 
sion, and  which  certainly  deserves  the  reprobation  of  all  thoughtful  and 
law-abiding  citizens.  Many  other  instances  of  boycott  are  disclosed  in  the 
record  of  this  case. 

In  social  disturbances  of  this  kind  with  which  we  are  dealing  the 
temptation  to  resort  to  this  weapon  oftentimes  becomes  strong,  but  is 
none  the  less  to  be  resisted.  It  is  an  attempt  of  many,  by  concerted  action, 
to  work  their  will  upon  another  who  has  exercised  his  legal  right  to 
differ  with  them  in  opinion  and  in  conduct.  It  is  tyranny  pure  and  simple, 
and  as  such  is  hateful,  no  matter  whether  attempted  to  be  exercised  by 
few  or  many,  by  operators  or  by  workmen,  and  no  society  that  tolerates 
or  condones  it  can  justly  call  itself  free. 

(From  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Committee, 
June  29,  1914,  of  Mr.  John  Breen,  grievance  officer  of  the  Tapes- 
tiy  Carpet  Workers  of  Philadelphia.  Page  3049  of  the  record. 
Union  Official  says  men  refuse  to  join  the  unions,  whose  restrict- 
ive rules  they  would  have  to  obey,  because  they  are  ambitious.) 

MR.  BUSIER:  Mr.  Breen,  to  what  do  you  attribute  the  fact  that  you 
do  not,  since  these  people  are  enjoying  the  union  benefits  and  more  could 
be  enjoyed  perhaps  by  a  stronger  organization,  that  you  do  not  unionize 
the  trade  more  thoroughly  in  Philadelphia? 

MR.  BREEN:  Well,  I  will  state  one  of  the  great  reasons  is  the  ambi- 
tion on  the  part  of  some  of  the  men  to  become  bosses,  even  though  they 
receive  salaries  much  below  that  the  position  they  fill  would  require. 

Workers  Attracted  by  Open  Shop  Conditions 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  C.  R.  Gore,  business  agent  of  the 
Los  Angeles  carpenters  district  council,  before  the  Industrial 
Relations  Commission,  September  10,  1914.  Page  5635  of  the 
record.  Mr.  Gore  admits  that  many  workers  go  to  Los  Angeles 


202  v    OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

because  they  are  told  it  is  an  open  shop  town  where  they  can 
work  without  belonging  to  a  union.) 

MR.  GORE:  Why,  I  have  seen  different  circulars  and  seen  the  adver- 
tisements in  the  papers  and  magazines,  and  they  were  going  on  to  state 
the  conditions,  and  that  as  far  as  the  climate  was  concerned  and  wages, 
that  men  were  in  demand,  and  that  there  was  a  high  rate  of  wages. 

COMMISSIONER  COMMONS  :  They  put  that  up  as  one  of  the  talking 
points  for  wage  earners? 

MR.  GORE:  Yes,  sir;  and  also  that  it  was  an  open  shop  town  and  a 
man  was  free  to  do  as  he  felt  like. 

COMMISSIONER  COMMONS:  Any  workman  that  came  here,  whether 
he  belonged  to  the  union  or  not,  he  could  find  work? 

MR.  GORE:     Yes,  sir. 

COMMISSIONER  COMMONS:  That  would  tend  to  bring  in  non-union 
men  here? 

MR.  GORE:  Why,  I  should  contend  so.  In  fact,  I  know  this  to  be 
true,  absolutely  to  be  true.  If  I  am  permitted  to  put  it  that  way,  men  that 
have  dropped  out  of  the  organization,  and  particularly  in  the  city  of  St. 
Louis,  Chicago,  Cincinnati,  and  other  places,  they  have  come  to  the  city 
of  Los  Angeles.  There  was  no  room  for  them  there.  Also  the  same 
thing  applies  to  certain  contractors.  They  had  conditions  that  didn't  just 
exactly  suit  them  back  in  those  cities,  and  they  came  here,  where  they 
were  free  to  do  as  they  felt  like. 

(From  testimony  of  Mr.  Earl  Constantine,  then  manager  of 
the  Employers'  Association  of  Washington,  before  the  Industrial 
Relations  Commission,  August  6,  1914.  Mr.  Constantine  shows 
that  open  shop  employers  are  able  because  of  improved  efficiency 
to  pay  high  wages.) 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  You  say  your  association  is  not  opposed 
to  collective  bargaining.  Under  this  idea  of  the  so-called  open  shop;  how 
could  collective  bargaining  be  successful  if  30  per  cent  or  20  per  cent 
of  the  people  were  organized  and  70  per  cent  or  80  per  cent  were  not 
organized? 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:  If,  as  I  said  a  few  minutes  ago,  in  order  to 
belong  to  the  organized  30  per  cent,  a  man  would  have  to  have  a  certain 
degree  of  efficiency  as  a  prerequisite  to  membership  in  that  30  per  cent, 
then  he  commands  the  labor  market  and  I  have  to  employ  him  because 
T  must  have  efficiency  in  my  plant,  and  in  that  you  would  find  the 
strength  of  organized  labor. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  Do  you  believe  it  is  possible  for  a  work- 
ingman,  as  an  individual  to  increase  his  wages,  to  reduce  his  hours 
and  to  improve  his  condition  of  employment  to-day? 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:  We  have  a  large  number  of  plants — a  number  of 
plants  right  here  in  the  city  of  Seattle,  open-shop  plants,  where  the 
wages  are  higher  by  the  way  than  the  prevailing  scale  in  the  same  line 
of  work  gotten  by  unions. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  How  was  that  brought  about — by  the 
organized  men? 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  INDEPENDENT  LABOR  203 

MR.  CONSTANTINE:    No,  sir. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:     How  was  that  brought  about? 
MR.  CONSTANTINE:    It  was  brought  about  because  the  modern  manu- 
facturer believes  in  efficient  labor,  and  he  is  willing  to  pay  for  it. 

The  "Scab" 

(Extracts  from  the  "Philosophy  of  Trade  Unions,"  by  Dyer 
D.  Lum,  first  printed  and  published  by  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  in  1892;  reprinted  in  1914;  still  circulated  from  their 
national  headquarters  January,  1921.  This  gives  the  view  of  the 
closed  shopper  on  the  rights  of  the  "scab"  or  independent  worker 
who  is  willing  to  take  a  job  without  asking  if  all  his  fellow  work- 
ers carry  the  union  card.) 

The  non-unionist  is  but  an  indirect  enemy;  in  withholding  his  afd 
he  by  so  much  weakens  the  common  line  of  defense.  Though  often 
his  acts  may  directly,  without  conscious  effort,  aid  the  enemy,  he  need 
not  be  a  traitor  to  his  fellow  toilers.  Every  great  movement  has  some 
object  of  superlative  loathing;  its  Judas  Iscariots,  its  Benedict  Arnolds, 
its  Pigotts,  its  paid  spies  and  informers,  its  Pinkerton  thugs — men  dead 
to  all  honor,  blind  to  mutual  interest,  dead  to  all  but  the  miserable  crav- 
ings of  their  shriveled  souls.  In  the  industrial  conflict  the  instinct 
of  workers  has  significantly  termed  its  type  of  this  species — "scab"! 
Loud  have  been  the  appeals  for  sympathy  with  the  workman  who  falls  out 
from  the  line  to  better  his  condition,  or  relieve  the  distress  of  a  starving 
wife  and  family.  But  to  prevent  just  such  contingencies  is  the  mission 
of  the  Union.  One  who  is  forced  to  the  necessity  of  wage  labor  and 
refuses  to  share  the  common  danger,  but  either  openly  or  steathily 
goes  over  to  the  enemy  to  accept  his  terms,  is  a  deserter.  By  his  act 
he  has  sundered  the  social  bonds  of  mutual  interest  which  united  him  to 
us,  has  served  notice  that  he  asks  no  aid,  expects  no  sympathy,  seeks 
no  quarter.  At  his  acted  word  we  take  him. 

The  time  has  passed  for  circumlocution  in  handling  this  subject.  If 
trade  unionism  has  a  logical  ground  for  existence,  if  organized  resistance 
is  preferable  to  slavish  submission,  if  the  social  ties  which  unite  us  in 
mutual  alliance  are  of  higher  validity  than  the  selfish  cravings  of  an 
unsocial  nature,  the  relation  between  the  trade  union  and  its  sycophantic 
enemy — the  "scab"  is  that  existing  between  the  patriot  and  the  paid 
reformer.  No  sentimentalism  will  attenuate;  no  olive  branch  will  be 
extended;  no  tears  will  be  shed  over  whatever  misfortune  befalls  him, 
nor  aught  but  utter  loathing  be  felt  for  him.  He  stands  forth  by  his 
own  act  recreant  to  duty.  .Bankrupt  in  honor,  infidel  to  faith,  destitute  of 
social  sympathy,  and  a  self-elected  target.  We  here  but  express  clearly 
what  workingmen  feel  in  every  industrial  crisis,  and  we  deliberately 
express  it  that  at  all  times  such  men  be  regarded  as  possible  "informers" 
and  traitors. 

To  sum  up,  to  assert  egoism  against  mutual  interests  is  unsocial 
and  hence  a  denial  of  the  mutual  basis  upon  which  equitable  relation 
alone  can  exist.  Thus  the  "scab"  is  not  merely  unsocial,  but  by  his  acted 
word  virtually  places  himself  with  the  industrial  invaders  and  becomes 


204  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

an  enemy.  Equal  freedom  cannot  be  strained  to  mean  a  denial  of  mutual 
interests.  Social  evolution  is  not  a  mere  theory,  but  a  record  of  facts, 
and  no  fact  is  more  strongly  brought  out  than  that  progress  has  resulted 
only  in  so  far  as  mutual  interests  have  been  recognized.  We  do  not  insti- 
tute them,  they  compel  us. 

Therefore,  primarily  as  human  beings,  become  so  by  social  evolu- 
tion, and  by  the  social  environment  in  which  the  present  struggle  is 
conditioned,  and  recognizing  as  the  goal  of  industrial  advance  the  mutual- 
ity of  interests  involved  in  the  assertion  of  equal  freedom,  in  strict 
accord  with  all  sociological  deductions,  and  with  the  utmost  submis- 
sion to  the  higher  law  permeating  social  growth,  we  reverently  raise  our 
hats  to  say  prayerfully:  "To  hell  with  the  scab!" 

Both  before  and  during  a  strike  a  union  door  should  always  swing 
inward  to  all  applicants  whom  reason  or  self-interest  may  convince.  But 
whoever  deliberately  refuses  alliance  with  organized  labor,  who  from 
cowardice  or  selfishness  stays  without  to  skulk  back  over  the  field, 
like  a  ghoul  for  personal  gain,  by  his  or  her  act  becomes  an  enemy. 
Your  duty  toward  them  will  be  determined  by  the  exigencies  of  the 
situation.  As  in  our  civil  war  the  timid  Union  men  in  the  South  and  the 
blatant  Copperhead  in  the  North,  received  but  little  respect  from  either 
side,  so  in  the  industrial  conflict  they  are  despised  by  those  who  urge 
them  on,  and  disowned  by  their  more  resolute  fellows.  "He  who  is  not 
with  us,  is  against  us." 

(An  article  entitled  UA  Scab  is  a  Hero,"  by  F.  W.  Phelps, 
editor  of  the  Pacific  Coast  Mechanic.) 

I  love  the  word  scab.  Time  was  when  I  shunned  and  shirked  it. 
It  seemed  to  have  about  it  an  unwelcome  ring  and  an  odium  which 
offended.  It  seems  to  suggest  something  for  which  I  did  not  stand. 
It  seemed  to  be  the  name  and  habit  of  an  economic  leper,  or  a  social 
outcast,  or  something  of  frightful  and  devilish  form.  But  labor  agitators 
have  made  me  love  the  word.  It  has  sloughed  all  its  old  meaning.  All 
its  hideous  trappings  have  fallen  away  from  it.  It  shines  in  a  new,  fresh 
sitting,  and,  in  our  time,  has  assumed  a  new,  grand  meaning. 

Scab!  What  good  American,  in  love  with  liberty  of  speech,  of  action 
and  of  conscience,  is  not  a  scab? 

Who  and  what  is  a  scab,  anyway? 

If  I  work  or  worship  untrammeled,  if  I  scorn  industrial  despotism; 
if  I  hate  individual  or  collective  dictation  or  coercion;  if  I  refuse  to 
lick  the  hands  of  parasitic  puppets;  if  I  refuse  homage  and  obedience  to 
men,  or  aggregations  of  men,  who  presume,  unasked,  to  do  my  thinking 
and  my  deciding  for  me,  if  I  refuse  "to  bend  the  pregnant  hinges  of  the 
new,"  and  kotow,  and  salaam,  to  men  for  whom  I  have  scant  respect 
or  no  respect  at  all,  with  thrift  and  a  good  job  as  a  reward  for  my 
fawning — then,  in  such  circumstances,  for  these  reasons  am  I  a  scab! 

Any  man  who  loves  and  values  his  own  liberty,  and  who  elects  to 
paddle  his  own  boat  is  a  scab. 

Put  me  in  that  class,  for  I  belong  there !  Born  in  America,  and  draw- 
ing whatever  of  civic  and  political  inspiration  I  am  fit  to  draw  from  the 
free  atmosphere  of  my  native  heath,  I  was  born  to  the  cherished  rights 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  INDEPENDENT  LABOR  205 

and  unquestioned  inclinations  of  a  freeman;  and  if  you  want  to  call  my 
rose  a  scab,  it  will  not  smell  less  sweet  to  me  on  that  account  Go  to; 
and 

"Lay  on  MacDuff; 

And  damned  be  he  who  first  cries  hold,  enough !" 

I  will  take  my  place  in  the  long  line  of  men  who  have  refused  to  be 
haltered  and  harnessed  by  their  inferiors;  in  the  line  with  Jefferson 
and  Paine,  with  Washington  and  Franklin,  with  Henry  and  Otis,  and  in 
the  line,  too,  with  the  school  children  of  this  city,  and  of  other  children 
in  this  city,  and  of  other  cities,  and  in  defense  of  them,  who  are  taunted, 
and  snubbed  and  jeered  because  their  daddies  are  scabs! 

Good  God !  When  the  swollen  and  impudent  tyrannies  of  irresponsible 
labor  agitators  reach  our  school  yards,  to  wring  the  hearts  of  our  children, 
and  to  attempt  to  torture  them  into  shame,  and  a  disrespect  for  their 
fathers,  is  not  it  a  challenge  to  the  manhood  and  womanhood  of  the 
nation  ? 

Surely  it  is  time  for  somebody  to  cry  out  against  these  infamies. 

In  heaven's  name  what  good  can  come  of  the  school-yard  taunt : 

"Your  papa  is  a  scab"? 

Are  we  still  to  be  put  in  the  pillory  and  burnt  at  the  stake  because 
of  our  opinions? 

Are  we  freemen  or  slaves? 

For  my  own  part  I  will  take  the  scab's  heritage,  I  love  the  scab's 
freedom,  and  the  courageous  independence  which  impels  him  to  do  his 
little  do  in  his  own  way.  Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  the  scab,  he 
has  no  boss  in  the  offensive  meaning  of  the  word.  There  are  no  shackles 
on  him ;  no  debasing  blinders ;  no  tags,  and  no  parasitic  overlordship  to 
make  a  mere  manikin  out  of  him.  He  is  free  to  come  and  go,  to  join 
or  not  to  join,  to  work  or  to  play,  to  do  or  not  to  do,  as  his  own  inclina- 
tions, his  own  interests,  his  own  conscience  may  suggest,  and,  in  the  sum 
of  it,  that  is  liberty,  personal  liberty  in  one  of  its  best  and  most  essential 
meanings. 

I  am  that  kind  of  a  scab ;  that  is  all  any  man  means  when  he  calls 
me  a  scab,  and  as  most  Americans  are  scabs  of  this  same  brand  I  do  not 
feel  at  all  lonesome. 

Hypocrisy  and  the  Constitution 

John  E.  Edgerton,  president  of  the  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers,  said  recently: 

"We  could  not  profess  without  arrant  hypocrisy  our  fervid  attachment 
to  the  concepts  and  immortal  pronouncements  of  the  great  Constitution  of 
the  greatest  government  on  earth,  nor  confess  our  faith  in  its  righteous^- 
intent,  if  at  the  same  time  we  preached  or  practiced  the  doctrine  that  a  man\ 
should  be  denied  the  right  to  work  unless  he  holds  a  membership  in  any  1 
organization  subordinate  to  our  government." 


2o6  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 


CHAPTER   XX. 

Some  Ethical  Aspects  of  the  Open  Shop 

Systems  and  organizations  are  justified  only  as  long  as  they 
advance  the  welfare  of  society  as  a  whole.  There  are  principles 
of  social  justice,  of  justice  to  all  parties  concerned,  which  should 
prevail.  They  will  prevail  when  and  because  the  public  takes 
enough  interest  to  act. 

Views  of  Pope  Leo  XIII 

(Pope  Leo  in  his  famous  "Encyclical  on  the  Condition  of 
Labor,"  said — italics  ours)  : 

"Associations  of  every  kind  and  especially  those  of  workingmen,  are 
now  far  more  common  than  formerly.  In  regard  to  many  of  these  there 
is  no  need  at  present  to  inquire  whence  they  spring,  what  are  their  objects 
or  what  means  they  use.  But  there  is  a  good  deal  of  evidence  which 
goes  to  prove  that  many  of  these  societies  are  in  the  hands  of  invisible 
leaders,  and  are  managed  on  principles  far  from  compatible  with  Christian- 
ity and  the  public  well-being;  and  that  they  do  their  best  to  get  into  their 
hands  the  whole  field  of  labor  and  to  force  workmen  either  to  join  them 
or  to  starve." 

Both  Unjust  and  Wicked 

(From  a  sermon  on  the  "Closed  Shop,"  by  Rev.  Dr.  David 
James  Burrell,  pastor  of  the  Marble  Collegiate  Presbyterian 
Church,  New  York  City,  the  oldest  church  on  the  continent. 
Printed  in  pamphlet  No.  26  of  the  National  Association  of  Manu- 
facturers.) 

"Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens  and  so  fulfill  the  Law  of  Christ." — 
Galatians  6 :2. 

I  have  nothing  to  say  against  the  labor  unions  as  such;  but  I  am 
opposed  to  their  revolutionary  schemes. 

The  right  of  organization  for  lawful  ends  is  universally  conceded. 
Let  us  go  a  step  further  and  say  that  it  is  not  only  right  but  expedient. 
First,  for  benevolent  purposes,  such  as  mutual  insurance  and  sick  bene- 
fits, the  relief  of  the  unemployed  and  the  care  of  widows  and  dependent 
children.  Second,  it  is  wise  and  prudent  to  combine  for  mutual  protection 
and  defense  against  all  encroachments.  The  good  Book  says,  "Two  are 
better  than  one;  for  if  one  fall  the  other  will  lift  him  up."  Our  Dutch 
forefathers  used  to  say,  Een  dracht  maakt,  this  is,  "In  union  there  is 
strength."  Even  the  strike,  when  rightly  understood  and  fairly  con- 
ducted, is  quite  justifiable.  Third,  organization  is  both  wise  and  neces- 
sary for  the  betterment  of  conditions,  particularly  as  to  suitable  hours 
and  equitable  wages,  and  safety  and  sanitary  conditions  for  workingmen. 

But  in  the  process  of  industrial  evolution  some  strange  and  unwar- 
rantable things  have  come  to  pass.  The  labor  unions  have,  in  my  judg- 


SOME  ETHICAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP  207 

ment,  made  three  frightful  mistakes.  First,  they  have  practically  signed 
away  their  freedom  to  unwise  and  incompetent  leaders.  It  is  bad  enough 
when  a  self-respecting  artisan,  at  work  with  others  in  a  well-conducted 
shop,  is  constrained  to  throw  down  his  saw  or  hammer  at  the  dictation 
of  a  walking  delegate  who  suddenly  appears  and  cries  "Knock  off !"  It 
is  still  worse  when  the  same  workman  is  under  bonds  to  sacrifice  both 
reason  and  conscience  at  the  direction  of  unprincipled  leaders  who  have 
recently  been  forced  to  call  a  halt  at  the  very  foot  of  the  gallows-tree 
Second,  the  resort  to  violence  is  a  fatal  mistake.  The  reference  is  not 
merely  to  mobs  and  dynamite,  but  to  all  lawless  methods  whatsoever.  Not 
long  ago  I  saw  a  line  of  "sandwichmen"  at  the  corner  of  Broadway  and 
Thirty-fourth  Street,  carrying  placards  with  this  device,  "Do  not  patronize 
thus  and  so:  They  employ  non-union  men."  If  you  follow  that  to  its 
logical  conclusion,  you  will  arrive  at  Los  Angeles.  But  the  third  mistake 
made  by  the  labor  unions  is  most  lamentable  of  all.  I  mean  the  adoption 
of  the  proposition  known  as  the  "closed  shop."  This  has  been  approved 
by  the  foremost  leaders  of  organized  labor  and  has  been  openly  defended 
in  one  of  our  magazines  by  Mr.  Darrow,  the  attorney  of  the  McNamara 
brothers  at  Los  Angeles,  who  took  a  retainer  of  $50,000,  for  their  defense, 
and  kept  his  retainer  with  the  perquisites  after  he  confessedly  knew  that 
his  clients  were  guilty. 

l^hat  is  this  proposition?  The  closed  shop  means  that  a  man  who 
declines  to  join  the  union  shall  not  be  permitted  to  work;  the  shop  is 
closed  against  him. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  unjust,  unreasonable,  unrighteous  and  des- 
perately wicked  and  suicidal  principles  ever  formulated  by  any  associa- 
tion of  civilized  men^  I  make  that  statement  advisedly  and  in  sustaining 
it  I  propose  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  calm  reasoning  of  laboring  men. 

First,  let  us  approach  the  question  from  the  industrial  point  of  view. 

The  closed  shop  involves  a  denial  of  the  freedom  of  labor,  and  so  far 
forth  it  is  an  attack  on  the  individual  rights  of  every  man.  It  is  a  singu- 
lar thing  when  one  stops  to  reflect  upon  it  that  laboring  men  should 
question  the  right  to  work  for  one's  living. 

But  the  industrial  folly  of  the  closed  shop  is  seen  most  clearly  in  the 
fact  that  it  reacts  disastrously  on  organized  labor.  It  is  a  suicidal  policy. 
It  demoralizes  the  unions  and  puts  them  obliviously  in  the  wrong.  It 
provokes  the  antagonism  and,  not  infrequently,  the  retaliation  of  those 
who  would  sincerely  befriend  them.  It  raises  the  cost  of  living  and  for- 
feits the  sympathy  of  all  right-thinking  men.  And  the  laborer  himself 
must  pay  for  it. 

It  is  estimated  that  the  strike  of  1894  in  Chicago  involved  a  loss  of 
eighty  millions  of  dollars.  Who  paid  the  bill?  Did  capital  pay  it?  Or, 
the  employers?  Oh,  no!  The  moment  the  wheels  of  industry  began  to 
move  again  the  employers  set  about  recouping  themselves  for  this  loss  and 
closed  their  teeth  with  a  new  determination  to  crowd  labor  to  the  wall. 
The  common  people,  in  the  long  run,  paid  every  penny  of  it! 

Secondly,  let  us  consider  the  matter  from  the  patriotic  point  of  view. 

In  the  preamble  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  in  which  are 
laid  down  the  rudimental  principles  of  our  constitutional  fabric,  we  have 


208  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

the  statement  that  "all  men  are  created  free  and  equal  and  with  certain 
inalienable  rights ;  among  which  are  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness." What  does  that  mean? 

It  does  not  mean  that  all  men  are  equal  in  weight  or  stature,  in  natural 
gifts,  or  endowment,  in  acquired  culture,  in  character,  in  education  or  in 
accomplishment.  It  does  mean  that  all  men  are  equal  before  the  law. 

And  this  is  the  principle  which  differentiates  our  republic  from  all 
other  governments  on  earth.  There  are  other  countries  where  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  freedom  are  valued  as  highly  and  guarded  as  jealously  as 
among  us ;  but  ours  is  the  only  country  in  which  there  are  no  titled  orders, 
no  privileged  classes,  no  aristocracy  except  that  which  is  measured  by 
the  moral  stature  of  a  man.  All  men  are  equal,  Jew  and  Greek,  Bar- 
barian and  Cythian,  rich  and  poor,  employer  and  employe,  striker  and 
strike-breaker,  unionist  and  "scab,"  all  are  equal  before  the  law.  The 
closed  shop  is  a  clear  and  flagrant  violation  of  that  principle;  and,  for  a 
true  American,  that  should  be  enough  to  say  against  it. 

But  further,  it  is  a  violation  of  the  American  doctrine  of  human 
rights.  How  reads  the  preamble?  All  men  have  "certain  inalienable 
rights;  among  which  are  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  To 
think  of  the  pursuit  of  happiness  without  the  privilege  of  earning  an 
honest  livelihood  is  impossible.  The  primal  law,  "Thou  shalt  eat  thy 
bread. by  the  sweat  of  thy  face,"  is  at  the  very  basis  of  a  comfortable 
life.  A  man  has  no  business  to  live  and  certainly  he  cannot  enjoy  life 
without  it. 

(When  you  say,  "A  man  has  no  right  to  labor,  except  on  my  terms," 
you  reduce  the  toiling  freeman  to  the  level  of  a  bondman.  There  was  a 
time  in  our  country  when  some  millions  of  negroes  were  in  chain^  The 
position  taken  by  their  owners  was,  "These  men  must  work,  but  only  as 
we  say."  O'hey  were  Thtis^held  as  prisoners  of  poverty.  And  because 
slavery  was^at  odds  with  the  vital  principles  of  our  national  life,  it  was  a 
foregone  conclusion  that  slavery  must  go.  But  wherein  did  the  position 
of  the  slave-owners  of  the  South  differ  from  that  of  our  labor  unions 
to-day  ?  Do  they  not  say,  "You  may  labor ;  but  only  on  condition  that 
you  join  us;  a^d  then  only  on  such  conditions  as  We  are  pleased  to  lay 
down  for  you?^ 

We  are  f5fm  of  saying  that  the  glory  of  America  is  in  the  third 
estate;  that  is  in  our  workingmen.  The  ideal  American  is  not  a  multi- 
millionaire; and  certainly  not  a  mendicant;  he  is  the  Village  Blacksmith, 
of  whom  Longfellow  sings : 

His  brow  is  wet  with  honest  sweat; 

He  earns  whate'er  he  can; 
And  he  looks  the  whole  world  in  the  face, 

For  he  owes  not  any  man. 

But  in  the  philosophy  of  organized  labor  that  is  not  so.  The  unions 
say,  "Hold  on!  This  blacksmith  shall  not  earn  'whate'er  he  can/  he  shall 
not  earn  anything  until  he  joins  the  Blacksmiths'  Union;  and  after  that  he 
shall  earn  only  what  we  say."  Here,  truly  is  a  new  order  of  things  in 
America. 


SOME  ETHICAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP 209 

Patriotism  and  the  Closed  Shop 

But,  further  still,  the  closed  shop  is  a  violation  of  civic  loyalty.  The 
terms  of  our  franchise  require  that  no  man  shall  be  a  citizen  who  does 
not  yield  an  undivided  fealty  to  the  republic.  The  labor  unions  have 
undertaken  to  set  up  an  imperium  in  imperio;  that  is,  a  government  within 
a  government;  claiming  the  right  to  make  laws  and  prescribe  rules  with- 
out reference  to  higher  authority.  And  the  trust  thus  organized  is  unin- 
corporated; in  other  words,  it  refuses  to  be  responsible  for  its  acts.  (Tt 
formulates  a  system  of  laws  which,  whether  so  intended  or  not,  do  prac- 
tically supersede  the  national  law  of  non-interference  with  the  rights  of 
other  merw  By  committing  themselves  to  this  policy  the  unionized  work- 
men of  our  country,  who  ought  to  be  foremost  in  supporting  its  principles 
of  justice,  have  arrayed  themselves  against  themT?  Is  that  a  hard  saying? 
Witness  the  mob  violence,  the  dynamite  plots  and  their  indorsement  by 
some  of  the  foremost  leaders  of  organized  labor,  and  the  contributions 
of  the  members  of  the  unions  to  the  defense  of  the  McNamaras  without 
this  slightest  knowledge  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoners  at 
the  bar. 

There  is  something  to  be  said  for  the  foreigners ;  for  the  Huns  and 
Slovaks  and  Bohemians  who  have  come  so  recently  to  our  country  that 
they  are  ignorant  of  its  right  and  privileges;  but  what  shall  be  said  for 
skilled  workingmen  of  American  birth  and  lineage,  who  lend  their  coun- 
tenance to  these  things?  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  an  assassin,  a 
foreigner  just  released  from  a  twenty-year  sentence,  should  go  about  the 
country  arm  in  arm  with  a  female  anarchist  advocating  the  closed  shop ; 
but  it  is  a  source  of  immeasurable  wonder  that  men  of  American  birth 
should  sell  their  birthright  for  a  mess  of  pottage  in  this  way. 

The  Closed  Shop  and  Religion 

It  remains,  thirdly,  to  look  at  this  matter  from  the  religious  point  of 
view. 

Ours  is  a  Christian  nation.  This  is  questioned  in  certain  quarters  by 
foreigners  who  have  recently  settled  among  us;  but  inasmuch  as  our 
Supreme  Courts  have  repeatedly  affirmed  the  fact,  no  true  American  ques- 
tions it. 

Our  Government  rests  on  the  brotherhood  of  man,  which  is  a  corol- 
lary of  the  fatherhood  of  God.  The  preamble  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, to  which  reference  has  been  made,  is  merely  a  transcript  of 
Paul's  manifesto  on  Mars'  Hill,  "God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations 
of  men,  for  to  dwell  upon  the  face  of  the  earth." 

Then  follows  the  correlative  proposition  laid  down  in  the  Golden  Rule 
of  Jesus,  "Do  unto  others  as  ye  would  be  done  by."  This  is  only  another 
way  of  saying  what  Jacob  said  to  his  sons,  "Ye  be  brethren;  see  that  ye 
fall  out  not  along  the  way."  The  controlling  factor  in  the  solution  of  the 
industrial  problem  is  the  social  duty  of  unselfishness.  The  sentiment  of 
organized  labor  as  laid  down  in  the  closed  shop  is,  "Look  out  for  number 
one,"  while  the  policy  of  a  Republican  government,  in  which  all  men  are 
free  and  equal,  is,  "Look  out  for  number  two."  The  only  way  to  secure  and 
preserve  our  personal  rights  is  to  yield  the  same  rights  to  other  men. 

I 


•s* 


2io  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

"The  square  deal"  is  the  enemy  of  the  closed  shop.  If  a  man  be  out  of  a 
"job,"  the  thing  for  workmen  to  do  is  to  lend  him  a  hand;  not  a  closed 
hand  to  strike  him  down,  but  a  "glad  hand"  to  lift  him  up. 

Another  of  the  great  principles  to  which  our  republic  stands  com- 
mitted is  known  as  "the  voluntary  principle  in  religion,"  that  is,  a  man 
may  worship  or  refuse  to  worship,  as  he  pleases  and  in  his  own  wa^  This 
involves  the  separation  of  church  and  state.  It  is  accordingly  provided, 
in  the  First  Amendment  to  our  Constitution,  that  there  shall  never  be 
an  establishment  of  religion;  that  is,  a  state  church.  This  does  not  mean 
that  we  are  not  committed  to  religion.  Our  theory  is  that  church  and 
state  are  co-ordinate  powers,  both  alike  ordained  of  God;  that  the  church 
has  to  do  with  religion  and  the  state  with  civil  government.  Each  sup- 
ports the  other  and  each  to  the  other  says,  "Hands  off." 

/Now  suppose  that  a  church  were  to  take  this  position:  "You  shall 
not  worship  unless  you  come  into  our  fellowship;  and  if  you  worship  at 
all  you  must  do  so  according  to  the  rites  and  ceremonies  which  we  pre- 
scribe for  you?!  That  is  precisely  what  the  pagan  church  did  in  Nero's 
day.  It  required  all  Christians  to  bow  before  the  gods  of  the  Pantheon; 
he  who  would  not  cast  a  wreath  into  the  lap  of  Cybele  was  doomed  to 
die.  What  dreadful  days  those  were!  The  Anglican  Church  in  the  time 
of  the  Stuarts  did  the  same  thing,  so  that  non-conformists  must  whisper 
their  prayers  in  conventicles  among  the  hills.  This  was  the  sort  of  perse- 
cution that  drove  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  to  the  New  World.  "What  sought 
they  thus  afar?  Freedom  to  worship  God!"  W/e  recognize  at  once  the 
violation  of  common  right  and  justice  in  this  case.  |Ft  is,  hosusver, 'no 
more  flagrant  than  that  of  the  labor  unions  in  refusing  to  theirfellow 
workmen  the  common  right  to  earn  a  livelihood  unless  they  will  consent 
to  labor  as  the  unions  sa$H 

For  these  reasons  I  affirm  that  the  closed  shop  has  no  ground  to  stand 
on.  It  savors  of  barbarism.  It  is  hostile  to  industry.  It  is  unpatriotic 
to  the  last  degree.  It  contravenes  the  genius  of  true  religion  and  par- 
ticularly of  the  religion  of  Christ.  It  is,  far  and  away,  behind  the  spirit 
of  the  age. 

The  Issue 

.  There  are  many  well-meaning  people  in  this  country  as  in  other  coun- 
tries, who  think  that  a  remedy  for  labor  unrest  fostered  and  inflamed 
by  men  who  would  rather  agitate  than  work,  will  be  found  in  making 
concessions  to  elements  that  are  of  evil  tendency.  They  must  learn  the 
lesson  that  no  concession  that  society  can  reasonably  make  will  satisfy 
the  forces  of  disorder. 

The  issue  is  plain.  It  is  a  struggle  between  law  and  lawlessness.  It 
is  an  issue  which  has  now  reached  its  culmination  in  this  country.  To-day 
the  American  people — each  man,  woman  and  child  of  whom  is  directly 
interested  in  our  common  industrial  welfare — must  face  the  question 
whether  rampant  and  criminal  unionism  or  law  and  order  and  common 
justice  shall  prevail. 


SOME  ETHICAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP  211 

Consider  the  Public 

(From  "The  Open  Door,"  by  Rev.  S.  Parkes  Cadman,  of 
Brooklyn,  one  of  the  most  noted  clergymen  of  the  United  States. 
Pamphlet  No.  8  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers.) 

I  am  glad  that  I  can  stand  upon  a  completely  non  partisan  and 
unembarrassed  platform.  There  is  only  one  way  in  which  our  difficulties 
in  connection  with  the  labor  issue  can  be  solved,  and  that  is  the  way 
indicated  by  the  title  of  this  address.  "The  Open  Door."  By  that  I 
mean,  the  right  of  every  workingman  and  of  every  professional  man  and 
of  every  type  of  man  to  sell  his  labor  and  any  other  product  he  has  for 
sale,  in  a  free  and  unrestricted  market.  Notwithstanding  the  advices 
you  may  hear  from  high  or  low  quarters  in  favor  of  an  opposite  policy, 
you  may  depend  upon  it  that  the  greatness  and  prosperity  of  this  coun- 
try at  large  depend  upon  its  adherence  to  this  simple  principle  of  liberty 
and  justice.  If  by  mutual  consent  and  arrangement  free  contracting 
parties  can  provide  schemes  that  will  ameliorate  some  harsh  features  of 
competition,  so  much  the  better,  but  they  must  be  free  in  making  their 
contracts,  and  this  seems  to  me  to  be  a  matter  for  personal  initiative  rather 
than  for  legislation. 

Indeed  these  things  cannot  be  accomplished  by  legislation,  and  any 
interference  of  such  with  employers  and  employes  will  not  only  contra- 
vene the  legal  rights  in  the  case — it  will  defer  the  reforms  for  which 
we  hope.  In  other  words,  however  well  meant  such  an  interference  may 
be,  it  will  end  by  defeating  itself. 

The  interference  of  the  union  with  the  transaction  of  business  is  an 
offense.  Sometimes  it  is  a  minor  offense,  subjecting  the  citizen  to  nothing 
worse  than  discourtesy  and  inconvenience.  Sometimes  the  offense  passes 
the  limits  of  petty  annoyance  and  becomes  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
private  prosperity.  I  refer  to  that  type  of  union  whirh  keeps  men 
back  from  doing  their  honest  best,  which  makes  idleness  a  precept, 
-estricts  the  output,  resists  the  introduction  of  improved  appliances,  limits 
:he  number  of  apprentices,  and  watches  for  opportunities  to  take  advan- 
age  of  an  employer's  necessities. 

Let  me  say  that  this  is*  an  intolerable  tyranny  which  stops  transpor- 
ation,  empties  the  market,  shuts  the  mine  and  puts  the  public  in  peril  of 
old  and  hunger.  That  third  party,  the  public,  must  be  reckoned  with, 
nd  unless  unions  can  learn  the  lessons  of  experience,  desist  from  vio- 
ence  and  act  within  legal  limits,  the  public  will  be  against  them.  Nothing 
/ill  finally  succeed  in  this  country  which  is  not  based  upon  foundations 
f  law  and  reason.  Not  even  for  the  sake  of  a  righteous  cause  will  a  man 
ield  to  tyranny,  much  less  for  an  unrighteous  one. 

Could  anything  be  more  ridiculous  if  it  were  not  wrong,  than  the  atti- 

ide  of  many  unions  toward  the  amount  of  labor  a  man  shall  do  in  a  day? 

talked  with  a  plumber  concerning  this  matter,  and  he  said,  "We  have 

ot  to  work  by  the  rule  of  the  poorest  plumber  as  well  as  the  best;  he 

iust  have  an  opportunity.    If  we  did  much  more  than  he  does,  we  would 

*  discharged."     Well,   after   admitting  whatever  there  is   in  this  plea, 

contend  that  if  a  doctor  worked  on  this  principle,  or  a  lawyer  pleaded 


212  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

for  his  client  on  such  a  basis,  the  first  to  complain  would  be  those 
who  now  adopt  it  as  a  working  plan.  As  little  as  you  can  do  for  as 
much  as  you  can  get  leads  to  disintegration,  violates  our  commercial 
honor,  reduces  our  trade  and  makes  our  artisans  incapable  of  competi- 
tion with  other  countries. 

Justice,  Charity  and  the  Open  Shop 

(From  an  article  "The  Closed  or  the  Open  Shop?"  by  Rev. 
Paul  L.  Blakeley,  a  Jesuit  priest.) 

So  much  for  the  abstract.  But  a  fairly  common  practical  case,,  the 
source  of  much  dissension,  may  be  thus  stated.  John  Jones,  a  union  man, 
is  a  worker  in  an  open  shop.  He  does  his  work  well.  But  the  owner, 
Richard  Smith,  a  bitter  opponent  of  all  unions,  discovers  that  John  Jones 
holds  a  card.  May  he  rightly  discharge  John  Jones  because  of  his  mem- 
bership in  a  union? 

It  may  be  answered  that,  considering  the  question  on  the  ground  of 
justice  alonei  he  may.  The  shop  is  his  own.  If  he  is  not  obliged  even  to 
hire  John  Jones,  a  fortiori,  he  is  not  obliged,  in  the  absence  of  definite 
contract,  to  retain  him.  He  may,  if  he  wishes,  discharge  all  his  red- 
headed employes,  or  his  men  who  smoke  cigarettes  or  drink  soda-pop, 
without  violating  justice.  For  as  he  is  not  obliged  in  justice  to  bring  any 
particular  worker  to  his  shop,  so  no  obligation  in  justice  arises  (except 
again  in  the  case  of  contract)  to  keep  any  particular  worker  in  his 
shop,  and  he  may  discharge  any  at  will.  True,  John  Jones  has  a  righi 
to  his  union  affiliations.  But  these  affiliations  do  not  and  cannot  consti- 
tute a  claim  in  justice  upon  Richard  Smith  for  employment,  or  for  reten 
tion  in  employment.  //  they  did,  every  employer  would  be  at  the  com- 
plete mercy  of  the  union. 

The  union  would  really  control  the  shop,  investing  Richard  Smitl 
with  this  right  alone :  to  secure  the  money  wherewith  to  pay  worker: 
whom  he  has  not  chosen  and  whom  he  does  not  wish  to  retain. 

Thus  may  the  question  be  solved  on  the  principles   of  justice. 

But  on  the  grounds  of  charity,  Richard  Smith  may  easily  offend  b: 
discharging  John  Jones  summarily,  on  the  sole  indictment  that  he  belong 
to  a  union,  and,  in  ordinary  cases,  he  will  so  offend.  But  he  will  no 
offend  against  justice,  because  John  Jones  has  no  claim  in  justice  whicl 
is  violated  by  his  discharge.  Yet  another  aspect  of  the  question  must  no 
be  omitted.  To-day,  a  general  practice  discountenances  summary  dis 
charge,  except  for  grave  offenses,  which  offenses  do  not  exist  in  th 
case  we  are  discussing.  The  reason  is  clear.  Dismissal  without  notic 
entails  additional  hardship  on  the  worker  and  his  family,  because  to  obtai 
new  work  at  an  equal  salary  is  often  difficult  But  this  general  practic 
or  understanding,  unless  in  a  given  case  it  amounts  to  a  contract,  nc 
valid  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  perhaps,  but  none  the  less  binding  in  cor 
science,  cannot  make  the  employer's  act  an  offense  against  charity.  An 
these  offenses  against  charity  are  one  of  the  most  pozverful  factors  i 
stirring  up  labor  dissensions.  A  worker  thus  discharged  does  not  sto 
to  weigh  nice  ethical  distinctions,  but,  very  naturally,  considers  himsel 
the  victim  of  gross  injustice. 


SOME  ETHICAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP  213 

Let  us  change  the  case  somewhat.  If  the  owner,  Richard  Smith, 
should  determine  to  force  every  man  in  his  shop  to  join  the  union,  might 
he,  without  violating  any  canon  of  justice,  discharge  John  Jones  who 
insisted  upon  remaining  non-union? 

He  might,  and  for  the  reasons  already  given.  Except  in  the  case 
of  contract,  John  Jones  has  no  claim,  binding  in  justice,  for  retention  in 
Richard  Smith's  shop. 

Similarly,  Richard  Smith,  on  attaining  possession  of  an  absolutely 
unionised  shop,  might  discharge  every  worker  who  refused  to  leave 
the  union.  He  would  not  offend  against  justice  although  he  would  have 
a  beautiful  case  of  boycott  on  his  shop,  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how 
he  could  escape  an  offense  against  charity.  For  it  is  admitted,  first,  that 
the  worker  needs  some  form  of  union  for  his  protection,  and  next,  that 
with  all  their  faults,  the  American  labor  unions  have  had  a  beneficent 
influence  in  protecting  the  worker  against  the  excesses  of  employers. 

Hence,  Richard  Smith's  action  in  dismissing  his  workers,  simply 
and  solely  because  they  refuse  to  set  aside  their  right  to  belong  to  a 
union,  must  be  regarded  as  a  defiance  of  common-sense,  and  prob- 
ably as  a  violation  of  charity. 

The  long  and  short  of  all  this  prosing  is  that  what  is  sauce  for 
the  goose  must  also  be  sauce  for  the  gander.  The  worker  cannot  insist 
upon  his  own  right  to  organize  and  then  denounce  employers  as  tyrants 
when  employers  themselves  proceed  to  organize.  Nor  can  he  praise  an 
employer  for  maintaining  a  strictly  union  shop,  as  is  the  employer's 
right,  and  then,  with  any  consistency,  anathematize  him  for  exercising 
his  right  either  to  reject  union  men  altogether  or  to  conduct  an  open 
shop. 

It  is  understood,  of  course,  that  if  John  Jones,  a  union  worker 
in  an  open  shop,  proceeds  to  disorganize  the  policy  of  that  shop  by  induc- 
ing the  other  workers,  through  threats  or  legitimate  argument,  to  join 
the  union,  thus  making  the  concern  a  "closed  shop,"  the  employer  may 
forthwith  dismiss  him  without  fear  of  violating  either  justice  or  charity. 
Charity  does  not  compel  an  employer  to  retain  an  employe  who  works 
against  his  wishes,  and  justice  is  here  not  in  question.  Labor  has  suffered 
much  from  capital,  and  that  may  often  excuse  the  tendency  of  the 
worker,  once  he  feels  the  strength  of  the  union  at  his  back,  to  go  to 
excesses  that  quite  equal  in  gravity,  if  not  in  frequency,  the  excesses  of 
capital. 

But  past  injustice  does  not  create  for  the  laborer  a  right  to  retain 
employment  on  terms  dictated  solely  by  himself  or  by  his  union. 


214  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

CHAPTER    XXI. 

Views  of  Prominent  Americans 
Abraham  Lincoln 

"Let  not  him  who  is  houseless  pull  down  the  house  of  another,  but 
let  him  work  diligently  and  build  one  for  himself,  thus  by  example 
assuring  that  his  own  shall  be  safe  from  violence  when  built." 

"If  you  have  been  taught  doctrines  conflicting  with  the  great  land- 
marks of  the  Declaration  of  Independence;  if  you  have  listened  to  sug- 
gestions which  would  take  away  from  its  grandeur  and  mutilate  the  fair 
symmetry  of  its  proportions;  if  you  have  been  inclined  to  believe  that 
all  men  are  not  created  equal  in  those  inalienable  rights  enumerated  in 
our  chart  of  liberty,  let  me  entreat  you  to  come  back!" 

The  Christian  Science  Monitor  of  February  14,  1921,  con- 
tained the  following  Jersey  City  dispatch : 

That  Abraham  Lincoln  would  have  believed  in  collective  bargaining, 
but  not  in  the  closed  shop,  was  declared  by  John  Hays  Hammond,  speak- 
ing before  the  Lincoln  Memorial  Association  here  on  Saturday. 

"Lincoln  would  have  tolerated  no  class  legislation  in  a  democracy," 
.said  Mr.  Hammond.  "He  refused  to  admit  a  class  distinction  between 
Capital  and  Labor.  He  regarded  Capital  and  Labor  as  a  mixed,  not  a 
distinct  class,  and  he  said,  'No  principle  is  disturbed  by  existence  of  this 
mixed  class.'" 

Citing  a  speech  by  Lincoln  at  New  Haven,  in  March,  1860,  Mr.  Ham- 
mond said  the  Lincoln  industrial  faith  was  the  "square  deal"  of  Theodore 
Roosevelt,  "and  while  in  one  speech  he  would  sound  a  note  of  warning 
to  greedy  capitalists,  in  the  next  he  would  admonish  communistic  ten- 
dencies on  the  part  of  Labor." 

Charles  W.  Eliot 

The  distinguished  ex-president  of  Harvard  is  quoted  in  "The  Square 
Deal"  of  April,  1910,  as  saying  "The  closed  shop,  the  joint  agreement 
including  the  closed  shop,  the  boycott,  and  the  union  label,  are  restrictions 
on  individual  liberty  too  great  to  be  endured'  by  a  democratic  people." 

James  R.  Day 

The  Chancellor  of  Syracuse  University,  writing  in  the  New 
York  Times  of  January  2,  1921,  says: 

"The  workingman  should  abandon  the  strike,  whether  the  law 
commands  it  or  not.  It  is  uncivilized  and  barbarous.  It  works  against 
higher  wages.  The  menace  of  it  is  figured  into  the  cost  of  every  con- 
tract. That  figures  it  out  of  wages." 

"True  Americans  will  work  together  for  good  citizenship,  good  busi- 
ness, good  wages  and  good  fellowship." 

"One  of  the  great  crimes  of  this  country  is  to  create  classes  among 


VIEWS  OF  PROMINENT  AMERICANS  215 

the  quiet  working  people  by  setting  up  conditions  each  against  the  other 
as  an  arbitrary  plan  out  of  which  one  prospers  and  the  other  suffers." 

Cardinal  Gibbons 

James  Cardinal  Gibbons  is  quoted  in  Pamphlet  No.   i,  the 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  as  follows: 

"The  right  of  a  non-union  laborer  to  make  his  own  contract  freely, 
and  perform  it  without  hindrance,  is  so  essential  to  civil  liberty  that  it 
must  be  defended  by  the  whole  power  of  the  government." 

Dr.  Lyman  Abbott 

The  editor  of  The  Outlook  is  quoted  in  Pamphlet  No.  I  of 
the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  as  saying: 

"If  any  section  of  society  endeavors  to  prevent  any  man  -from 
working  and  enjoying  the  product  of  his  work,  that  section  of  society 
is  unjust.  If  any  organization  undertakes  to  prevent  any  man  from 
working,  when  he  will,  where  he  will,  and  at  what  wages  he  will,  that 
organization  violates  the  essential  rights  of  labor." 

Bishop  McCabe 

Bishop  McCabe   (Methodist)   is  quoted  in  Pamphlet  No.  I 
of  the  National  Association  of   Manufacturers  as  saying: 

"I  want  to  state  the  attitude  of  the  Church,  and  this  statement  is 
official.  We  are  opposed  to  having  a  small  percentage  of  laboring  men 
run  the  entire  laboring  class  in  a  high-handed  and  authoritative  manner. 
*  *  * 

"It  is  an  imposition  for  a  few  men  to  say  'join  our  union  or  you 
cannot  work !'  It  is  an  imposition  to  refuse  to  allow  men  to  work  as  thy 
will  if  they  work  honestly  and  earn  their  livelihood  by  honest  sweat.  As 
now  constituted,  labor  unions  cannot  long  stand.  Either  they  must  reform 
themselves  or  they  will  cease  to  exist." 

Archbishop  Ireland 

The  late  Archbishop  Ireland  is  quoted  as  follows  in  Pamph- 
let No.  I  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers: 

"They  who  cease  to  work  must  in  no  way  interfere  with  the  liberty 
of  others  who  may  wish  to  work.  The  personal  freedom  of  the  indi- 
vidual citizen  is  the  mosft  sacred  and  precious  inheritance  of  America. 

"Labor  unions  must  be  on  their  guard  against  serious  evils  threaten- 
ng  them.  They  cannot  be  tolerated  if  they  interfere  with  the  general 
iberty  of  non-union  men  who  have  a  right  to  work  in  or  outside  of  unions 
is  they  please.  Public  opinion  and  public  law  will  and  must  protect  this 
iberty. 

"It  is  wrong  in  the  labor  unions  to  limit  the  output  of  work  on  the 
>art  of  its  members.  The  members  themselves  are  injured.  They  are 
•educed  to  a  dead  level  of  inferiority." 


216  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Bishop  Quayle 

In  these  days  when  prominent  men  in  the  church  and  schoo! 
are  speaking  and  writing  on  industrial  subjects,  often  without 
close  acquaintance  with  them,  it  is  good  to  read  the  following 
extract  from  a  letter  Bishop  Wm.  A.  Quayle  of  the  Centenan 
Conservation  Committee  of  the  Methodist  Church  wrote  to  th< 
President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Quoted  in  ttu 
Omaha  Open  Shop)  : 

"I  believe  that  under  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  under  th( 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  it  is  absolutely  illegitimate  for  any  mai 
or  group  of  men  to  call  any  other  American  citizen  a  scab  because  he  doe; 
not  belong  to  their  group  or  organization.  I  hold  that  that  must  cease  i 
America  is  to  remain  a  republic.  I  hold  that  the  laboring  man  constitute: 
all  who  labor,  and  that  the  words  'laboring  class'  to  which  all  honorabl* 
Americans  belong,  must  not  be  applied  to  a  very  small  minority  of  th< 
laboring  people,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  great  multitude  of  laboring  people 
There  must  be  in  America  an  absolutely  open  door  to  any  man  who  want, 
to  work  to  get  it  without  being  anything  more  than  an  American  citizen 
*  *  * 

"I  am  acquainted  with  the  declarations  that  organized  labor  has  mad< 
and  have  kept  posted  in  them  all  these  years,  but  am  more  concerned  ii 
what  organized  labor  does  than  what  organized  labor  says,  for  in  thi 
business  deeds  speak  louder  than  words." 

Governor  Parker 

Governor  John  W.  Parker,  of  Louisiana,  is  quoted  as  fol 
lows  in  the  La  Grange,  Georgia,  Reporter,  July  16,  1920: 

"I  am  absolutely  the  Governor  of  all  the  people;  I  don't  recogniz 
under  the  law,  the  right  of  union  labor  or  any  other  labor  to  dictate  wh< 
shall  be  and  who  shall  not  be  employed  on  public  works." 

Governor  Goodrich 

Governor  Goodrich,  of  Indiana,  is  quoted  as  follows  in  th 
Omaha  Open  Shop,  of  October  15,  1920: 

"The  man  who  would  subject  the  national  life  and  all  of  its  inter 
ests  to  the  will  of  his  group  is  an  unrighteous  and  disloyal  citizen." 

Miles  Poindexter 

United  States  Senator  Poindexter  writes  as  follows  in  th 
Outlook: 

Labor  cannot  be  free  "if  a  laboring  man  can  be  compelled,  by  bein; 
denied  work,  to  submit  himself  to  the  control  of  the  unions." 


VIEWS  OF  PROMINENT  AMERICANS  217 

Herbert  Hoover 

Before  the  Labor  Committee  of  the  United  States  Senate  Mr. 
Hoover  said: 

VThe  principle  of  individual  freedom  requires  the  open  shop.'^j 
Calvin  Coolidge 

Vice-President  Calvin  Coolidge  in  his  1920  speech  of  accept- 
ing the  nomination  said : 

"The  Government  of  the  United  States  *  *  *  has  been  and  intends 
to  be  a  nation  devoted  to  the  acts  of  peace.  Fundamentally  considered, 
its  abiding  purpose  has  been  the  recognition  of  the  rights  and  the  develop- 
ment of  the  individual. 

"Conscious  that  our  resources  have  now  reached  a  point  where  there 
is  an  abundance  for  all,  we  are  determined  that  no  imposition  shall  here- 
after restrain  the  worthy  from  their  heritage." 

Warren  G.  Harding 

"The  human  element  conies  first,  and  I  want  the  employers  in  indus- 
try to  understand  the  aspirations,  the  convictions,  the  yearnings  of  the 
millions  of  American  wage-earners,  and  I  want  the  wage-earners  to  under- 
stand the  problems,  the  anxieties,  the  obligations  of  management  and 
capital,  and  all  of  them  must  understand  their  relationship  to  the  people 
and  their  obligation  to  the  republic.  Out  of  this  understanding  will  come 
the  unanimous  committal  to  economic  justice,  and  in  economic  justice  lies 
that  social  justice  which  is  the  highest  essential  to  human  happiness." 

William  Howard  Taft 

Mr.  Taft  writes  as  follows  in  the  Philadelphia  Ledger  of 
January  22,  1921 : 

"There  are  many  cities  and  towns  whose  progress  and  welfare  have 
been  retarded  and  injured  by  the  tyranny  of  local  trades  unions  who  have 
been  strong  enough  to  stop  building  and  other  improvements  by  their 
exorbitant  demands,  not  only  as  to  wages,  but  also  as  to  hours  and  other 
terms.  They  have  been  able  to  defeat  any  attempt  to  bring  in  non-union 
men,  either  to  take  the  place  of  or  to  supplement  union  labor.  *  *  * 
The  outrage  perpetrated  upon  the  entire  community  by  Brindell  and  his 
associates  in  which  some  employers  seem  to  have  connived,  cannot  be  too 
strongly  condemned.  Its  direct  effect  has  been  so  to  decrease  the  con- 
struction as  to  keep  up  the  rents  everywhere  and,  indeed,  to  make  it  well 
nigh  impossible  to  furnish  decent  shelter  for  the  poor. 

"With  a  movement  which  has  for  its  object  the  abolition  of  such 
a  perversion  of  the  labor  union  every  disinterested  person  must  deeply 
sympathize.  *  *  *  (The  closed  shop  is  lawful)  but  it  is  unsocial  and 
should  be  resisted,  if  possible,  by  employers.  When  the  latter  unite  to 
fight,  they  should  have  the  sympathy  of  all  good  men,  and  the  public  will 
sustain  them  in  the  struggle.  A  closed  non-union  shop  is  just  as  unsocial 
as  the  closed  shop  of  the  labor  union  and  deserves  no  more  support  or 
sympathy  from  good  men  or  from  the  public  than  the  other. 


218  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

"Extremists  among  employers  are  very  unwise  and  do  not  help  the 
public  weal.  The  principle  of  the  combination  among  workmen  is  indis- 
pensable to  their  welfare  and  their  protection  against  the  tyranny  of 
employers.  That  they  often  abuse  the  power  will  not  lead  to  depriving 
them  of  it.  *  *  *  Now,  in  that  field  the  closed  shop  on  each  side  is 
lawful;  the  courts  will  not  restrain  it,  but  it  is  hard,  selfish,  unsocial  and 
in  the  end  reacts  upon  the  users.  Employers  and  employes  should  shun 
it,  and  come  together  in  the  open  shop." 

Theodore  Roosevelt 

In  a  message  to  Congress  in  1902,  Mr.  Roosevelt  said: 

"Every  employer,  every  wage-earner,  must  be  guaranteed  his  liberty 
and  his  right  to  do  as  he  likes  with  his  property  or  his  labor  so  long  as 
he  does  not  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  others.  It  is  of  highest  importance 
that  employer  and  employe  alike  should  endeavor  to  appreciate  each  the 
viewpoint  of  the  other  and  the  sure  disaster  that  will  come  upon  both 
in  the  long  run  if  either  grows  to  take  as  habitual  an  attitude  of  sour 
hostility  and  distrust  toward  the  other." 

The    Anthracite    Coal    Strike    Commission    appointed    by 
President  Roosevelt  in  its  award  said: 

"No  person  shall  be  refused  employment,  or  in  any  way  discriminated 
against,  on  account  of  membership  or  non-membership  in  any  labor 
organization,  and  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against,  or  interference 
with  any  employe  who  is  not  a  member  of  a  labor  organization  by  mem- 
bers of  such  organization." 

In  a  letter  of  June  14,  1903,  Mr.  Roosevelt  commented  on 
this  as  follows: 

"I  heartily  approve  of  this  award  and  judgment  by  the  Commission 
appointed  by  me,  which  itself  included  a  member  of  a  labor  union.  This 
Commission  was  dealing  with  labor  organizations  working  for  private 
employers.  It  is,  of  course,  mere  elementary  decency  to  require  that  all 
the  Government  departments  shall  be  handled  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  thus  clearly  and  fearlessly  enunciated." 


LEGAL  ASPECTS  ;  PUBLIC  REGULATION  219 

CHAPTER   XXII. 

Legal  Aspects;  Public  Regulation 

(From  "Organized  Labor  in  America,"  by  Professor  G.  H. 
Groat,  of  the  University  of  Vermont.    Pages  286-290.) 

What  shall  be  said  of  the  legality  of  the  closed  shop?  If  a  contract 
is  entered  into  between  an  employer  and  his  men  agreeing  that  no  one 
but  union  labor  shall  be  employed,  is  that  contract  valid?  There  is  some 
basis  for  a  conclusion  on  this  question,  though  not  sufficient  to  make 
such  conclusion  final. 

In  a  closed-shop  contract  that  led  to  a  trial  in  the  Massachusetts  court 
(Berry  vs.  Donovan,  74  N.  E.,  603),  it  had  been  definitely  agreed  that  the 
employer  would  hire  only  members  of  the  union  in  good  standing  and 
further  that  he  would  not  retain  in  his  employ  any  worker  after  receiv- 
ing notice  from  the  union  that  such  worker  was  objectionable  to  the 
union,  whether  such  objection  was  based  on  the  worker's  being  in  arrears 
for  dues,  disobedient  to  the  rules  or  laws  of  the  union  or  for  any  other 
cause. 

In  accordance  with  this  agreement  a  workman  was  discharged  who 
had  been  in  his  employ  for  nearly  four  years.  He  brought  suit  for  dam- 
ages on  the  ground  that  the  agreement  had  injured  him  by  bringing  about 
his  discharge  when  it  would  not  have  occurred  otherwise.  While  the 
term  of  employment  was  not  for  a  fixed  time,  yet  it  appeared  to  the 
court  that  the  agreement  authorized  the  union  "to  interfere  and  deprive 
any  workman  of  his  employment  for  no  reason  whatever,  in  the  arbitrary 
exercise  of  its  power."  With  these  two  points  in  mind  the  court  was  of 
the  opinion  that  "whatever  the  contracting  parties  may  do  if  no  one  but 
themselves  is  concerned,  it  is  evident  that,  as  against  the  workman,  a 
contract  of  this  kind  does  not  of  itself  justify  interference  with  his  employ- 
ment by  a  third  person  who  made  the  contract  with  his  employer."  It 
seemed  that  the  motive  was  one  to  injure  and  so  damages  were  awarded. 
The  decision  rested  solely  upon  the  fact  that  the  injured  person  had  been 
in  the  employment  for  about  four  years.  What  would  have  been  the  law 
of  the  case  if  it  had  been  brought  by  one  seeking  employment  and  unable 
to  secure  it  because  of  the  agreement  is  a  point  that  is  not  discussed. 

In  the  New  York  courts  the  question  came  up  in  a  different  form, 
somewhat  more  satisfactory  for  the  discussion  of  the  general  principles 
involved.  The  parties  had  agreed  that  no  employe  should  be  allowed  to 
work  for  longer  than  four  weeks  without  becoming  a  member  of  the 
union.  The  court  argued  that  public  policy  and  the  interests  of  society 
favor  the  utmost  freedom  in  the  citizen  to  pursue  his  lawful  calling  or 
trade.  If  a  combination  of  working  men  interfered  with  the  fulfillment 
of  this  purpose  through  contracts  with  employers,  coercing  other  working 
men  to  become  members  of  the  organization,  such  action  militates  against 
the  principle  of  public  policy  which  prohibits  monopoly  and  special  privi- 
leges. "It  would  tend  to  deprive  the  public  of  the  services  of  men  in 
useful  employments  and  capacities.  It  would  impoverish  and' crush  a  citi- 
zen for  no  reason  connected  in  the  slightest  degree  with  the  advancement 


220  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

of  wages  or  the  maintenance  of  the  rate."  Concluding,  the  court  says: 
"While  it  may  be  true  that  the  contract  was  entered  into,  on  the  part  of 
the  (employers),  with  the  object  of  avoiding  disputes  and  conflicts  with 
the  workingmen's  organization  that  feature  and  such  an  intention  cannot 
aid  the  defense,  nor  legalize  a  plan  of  compelling  workingmen  not  in  affilia, 
tion  with  the  organization  to  join  it,  at  the  peril  of  being  deprived  of 
their  employment  and  of  the  means  of  making  a  livelihood."  (Curran  vs. 
Galen,  46  N.  E.,  297.) 

Later  another  case  came  to  the  same  court.  The  agreement  was  a 
very  elaborate  one,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  abstract  from  the 
opinion  of  the  court  (Jacob  vs.  Cohen,  76  N.  E.,  6)  :  "The  contract  is  in 
substance  as  follows:  The  defendants  were  the  party  of  the  first  part; 
their  own  employers,  'By  Barnard  Kaplan,  their  representative  and  attor- 
ney in  fact/  party  of  the  second  part;  and  the  Protective  Coat  Tailors'  and 
Pressers'  Union,  Local  No.  66,  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  of  America 
a  voluntary  association  organized  by  the  parties  of  the  second  part, 
acting  'through  Barnard  Kaplan,  its  secretary/  party  of  the  third  part. 
It  consists  chiefly  of  restrictive  stipulations  against  the  employers,  who 
agree  to  employ  the  persons  already  in  their  employment  *  *  *  each  in  his 
own  capacity  and  for  no  other  work  than  he  was  engaged  for,  during  the 
period  of  one  year.  After  fixing  the  number  of  working  hours  per  week, 
it  was  agreed  that  'under  no  circumstances  shall  work  be  carried  on  by 
the  parties  of  the  first  and  second  part  at  any  other  hours  than  herein 
specified  without  a  written  consent  of  the  party  of  the  third  part,  executed 
by  its  duly  authorized  officer.'  It  was  further  agreed  'that  the  party  oi 
the  first  part  shall  not  employ  any  help  whatsoever  other  than  those 
belonging  to  and  who  are  members  of  the  party  of  the  third  part  and  ir 
good  standing  and  who  conform  to  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the 
said  party  of  the  third  part;  and  the  said  party  of  the  first  part  shal' 
cease  to  employ  any  one  and  all  those  employes  who  are  not  in  gooc 
standing  and  who  do  not  conform  to  and  comply  with  the  rules  and  regu- 
lations of  said  party  of  the  third  part,  upon  being  notified  to  that  effec1 
by  its  duly  credentialed  representatives.  The  party  of  the  first  part 
hereby  agrees  to  abide  by  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  party  of  tht 
third  part,  as  known  in  the  trade,  and  to  permit  and  allow  representative; 
of  said  party  of  the  third  part  to  enter  their  shop  or  shops  at  any  and  al 
hours  of  the  day  and  night  for  the  purpose  of  inspection  and  enforcemen 
of  the  terms  of  this  contract,  as  well  as  all  the  rules  and  regulations  hereii 
referred  to.  The  party  of  the  first  part  shall  not  engage  any  help  what- 
soever, even  those  who  are  members  of  the  party  of  the  third  part,  with- 
out their  first  having  produced  a  pass  card  duly  executed  and  signed  b} 
the  authorized  business  agent  of  the  party  of  the  third  part,  said  card  t< 
show  that  the  bearer  thereof  is  a  member  in  good  standing  of  the  part} 
of  the  third  part  and  that  he  has  complied  with  the  rules  and  regulation 
thereof  in  force  at  that  time.  The  party  of  the  first  part  shall  not  emplo; 
more  than  one  helper  to  every  two  operators,  or  one  helper  to  two  basters 
and  under  no  consideration  to  employ  any  apprentices.'  The  parties  of  th 
second  part  also  agreed  not  to  employ  apprentices  and  to  abide  by  th< 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  party  of  the  third  part.  'In  the  event  o 


LEGAL  ASPECTS;  PUBLIC  REGULATION  221 

any  one  of  the  parties  of  the  second  part  not  remaining  and  continuing 
during  the  entire  period  of  this  contract  in  good  standing,  or  does  not  in 
all  respects  conform  with  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  party  of  the 
third  part,  then  the  party  of  the  first  part  shall  cease  to  employ  such 
employe  whoever  he  may  be  *  *  *  That  the  parties  of  the  second  part 
may  quit  work  during  a  so-called  'sympathetic  strike,'  provided  no  new 
demands  are  made  by  them.  Such  quitting  of  work  on  their  part  shall  in 
no  way  affect  the  validity  of  this  agreement  or  suspend  its  operation.'  A 
minimum  scale  of  wages  was  agreed  upon,  and  finally  the  party  of  the 
first  part  agreed  to  deposit  and  hereby  does  deposit  with  the  party  of  the 
third  part  a  promissory  note  in  the  sum  of  two  hundred  dollars  *  *  *  as 
security  for  the  faithful  performance  by  the  party  of  the  first  part  of  all 
the  covenants  and  conditions  herein  contained  *  *  *  as  liquidated  and  ascer- 
tained damages  upon  the  commission  of  any  breach  or  violation  of  any  of 
the  covenants  herein  above  set  forth  on  the  part  of  the  party  of  the  first 
part  *  *  *  '  The  only  stipulation  on  the  part  of  the  union  was  that  it 
would  'furnish  any  help  it  may  have  on  its  application  books'  which 
it  was  to  keep  for  the  benefit  of  the  other  parties  without  charge  of  any 
kind  to  any  person." 

In  this  instance  the  court  held  that  the  agreement  was  not  unlawful. 
It  was  voluntarily  entered  into  by  the  employers.  If  the  employers  chose 
to  enter  into  such  an  agreement  they  were  -free  to  do  so.  It  seemed  to 
the  court  that  the  employers  had  come  to  be  released  with  the  expecta- 
tion of  profit  to  themselves.  If  they  regarded  it  as  beneficial  to  them- 
selves "does  it  lie  in  their  mouths  now  to  urge  its  illegality?"  The  view 
of  public  policy  seems  to  have  changed.  'That,  incidentally,  it  might  re- 
sult in  the  discharge  of  some  of  those  employed,  for  failure  to  come  into 
affiliation  with  their  fellow  workmen's  organization,  or  that  it  might 
prevent  others  from  being  engaged  upon  the  work,  is  neither  something 
of  which  the  employers  may  complain,  nor  something  with  which  public 
policy  is  concerned." 

Other  cases  have  been  brought  to  the  courts  but  these  do  not  set 
forth  so  clearly  the  principles  involved.  In  an  Illinois  case  (O'Brien  vs. 
People,  75  N.  E.,  108),  the  employers  had  refused  to  sign  a  closed-shop 
agreement  and  the  employes  had  gone  on  strike  to  compel  them  to  sign. 
Such  an  act  the  courts  would  not  uphold.  It  was  coercive  and  unlawful, 
violative  of  the  legal  right  of  the  employer,  and  it  was  "unjust  and 
oppressive  as  to  those  who  did  not  belong  to  the  labor  organizations."  In 
Massachusetts  an  employer  had  posted  a  set  of  open  shop  rules  that  were 
to  go  into  effect  at  a  stated  time.  (Reynolds  vs.  Davis,  84  N.  E.,  457).  A 
strike  was  called  to  prevent  the  rules  being  put  into  effect.  The  legality  of 
such  a  strike  was  questioned  before  the  court.  To  the  court  the  purpose 
seemed  to  be  to  close  the  shop  arbitrarily  to  all  workmen  not  members  of 
the  union,  "not  because  such  workmen  were  personally  objectionable  in 
any  particular,  nor  because  there  was  not  work  enough  for  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  union  if  non-union  men  were  employed,  but  to  compel  all 
workmen  to  join  the  union  for  the  purpose  of  creating  a  monopoly  in  the 
labor  market,  whereby  to  be  able  to  contend  successfully  with  employers 
whenever  a  controversy  should  arise."  A  strike  for  such  a  purpose  "would 


222  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

not  be  justifiable  on  principles  of  competition,  either  as  against  non-union 
workmen  or  as  against  the  employer,  but  would  be  unlawful." 

For  reasons  other  than  the  principles  involved  in  the  closed-shop 
contract,  it  may  be  unlawful  to  form  an  agreement  that  will  result  in 
the  discharge  of  workmen  already  employed  at  the  time  of  the  making 
of  the  agreement.  It  may  be  the  basis  for  damages.  Also  it  appears  that 
a  strike  to  compel  the  adoption  of  a  closed-shop  agreement  may  be  unlaw- 
ful. That  involves  the  more  general  question  of  the  legality  of  strikes, 
whatever  may  be  their  purpose.  That  topic  has  been  discussed  in  the 
chapter  on  Strikes.  In  the  last  case  referred  to,  it  appears  further  that 
the  question*  of  competition  and  monopoly  are  not  foreign  to  this  dis- 
cussion. 

The  judicial  attitude,  then,  is  not  settled  into  agreement.  Of  course, 
violence  and  intimidation  will,  if  used  by  one  of  the  parties  to  secure 
the  agreement,  free  the  other  from  the  binding  force  of  the  contract. 
There  is  uniformity  on  that  point  worked  out  through  channels  and  applic- 
able in  all  cases.  But  coercion  aside,  there  remains  the  uncertainty  as  to 
how  the  courts  will  view  a  contract  of  this  kind.  It  may  come  within  the 
right  o?  the  contracting  parties  so  long  as  the  agreement  is  entered  into 
voluntarily.  It  may,  on  the  other  hand,  be  viewed  as  a  monopoly  against 
which  even  the  freedom  of  contract  will  not  stand. 

Public  Closed  Shop  Contracts 

Such  contracts  are  held  void  by  the  courts  generally  on 
several  grounds.  The  chief  ground  is  that  such  contracts  are  in 
the  nature  of  class  legislation;  that  a  public  body  representing 
all  the  people  has  no  right  to  discriminate  between  different  classes 
in  the  bestowal  of  public  benefits  or  patronage. 

A  few  of  the  cases  supporting  this  contention  are : 

Lewis  vs.  Board  of  Education,   n  Detroit  Legal  News,  840. 

Adams,  v s.  Brenan,  177  Illinois,   194. 

Holden  vs.  City  of  Alton,  179  Illinois,  318. 

City  of  Atlanta  vs.  Stein,  in  Georgia,  789. 

Marshall  and  Bruce  Co.  vs.  City  of  Nashville,  71  S.  W.,  815. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Michigan  in  the  first  case  listed 
quoted  with  approval  the  following  utterances  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Illinois : 

The  question  is  whether  the  Board  of  Education  has  a  right  to  enter 
into  a  combination  with  such  an  organization  for  the  expenditure  of 
taxpayers'  money  for  the  benefits  of  members  of  the  organization  and  to 
exclude  any  portion  of  the  citizens  following  lawful  trades  and  occupa- 
tions from  the  right  to  labor.  It  has  no  such  rights. 

The  authorities  are  unanimous  to  the  effect  that  the  Gov- 
ernment in  awarding  public  contracts  has  no  right  to  discriminate 
against  any  section  of  workers,  since  such  discrimination  is 
against  public  policy  and  unlawful. 


LEGAL  ASPECTS;  PUBLIC  REGULATION  223 

Some  Illegal  Strikes 

(Testimony  of  Mr.  Gilbert  E.  Roe,  prominent  New  York 
attorney  who  has  represented  strikers  in  many  cases,  before  the 
Industrial  Relations  Commission,  May  10,  1915.  See  pages  10484 
and  10485  of  testimony.) 

COMMISSIONER  WEINSTOCK:  I  see.  Well,  that  is  a  new  point  of  view 
to  me.  I  was  under  the  impression  that  a  strike  was  not  illegal  any- 
where; that  what  became  illegal  was  an  attempt  to  keep  other  men 
from  taking  the  strikers'  places;  and  that  every  man  either  individually 
or  collectively  has  a  right  to  quit  work  either  collectively  or  individually, 
but  has  no  right  to  prevent  other  men  from  taking  the  jobs  if  other  men 
wanted  to  take  their  places. 

MR.  ROE:  No;  a  strike — the  courts  declare  that  strikes  may  be 
unlawful  for  two  reasons.  One  is  the  object  sought  to  be  accomplished, 
and  the  other  is  the  method.  Now,  let  me  give  you,  if  you  please,  a 
list  of  the  instances  in  which  strikes  have  been  held  to  be  unlawful.  I 
will  not  burden  you  with  the  cases,  but  there  are  scores'  of  cases  on  each 
of  these  propositions. 

A  sympathetic  strike  where  the  strikers  do  not  seek  direct  benefits 
for  themselves  is  illegal.  That  is  the  doctrine  applicable  particularly 
to  Massachusetts. 

/  A  strike  to  interrupt  interstate  commerce  is  illegal. 

A  combination  of  railway  employes  to  tie  up  interstate  commerce 
by  a  strike  offended  the  Sherman  anti-trust  law. 

A  strike  to  compel  an  employer  to  operate  a  closed  shop  is  illegal. 

A  strike  to  prevent  the  employment  of  certain  workmen  is  illegal. 
That  is  the  very  point  you  mention. 

A-  strike  to  bring  about  the  employment  of  union  men  exclusively 
throughout  any  considerable  industry  in  any  community  is  illegal. 

A  strike  to  prevent  a  railway  from  hauling  Pullman  cars  is  illegal. 

A  strike  to  prevent  a  railway  from  handling  the  cars  of  a  connect- 
ing railroad  is  illegal. 

A  strike  against  a  manufacturer  because  he  does  work  for  a  fellow 
manufacturer  who  is  tied  up  with  a  strike  is  illegal. 

A  strike  to  extort  money  is  illegal. 

Where  a  strike  is  illegal  the  payment  of  strike  benefits  may  be 
enjoined. 

Of  course  in  case  of  an  injunction  issued  against  a  strike  to  prevent 
the  hauling  of  cars  striking  is  illegal. 

Strikes  to  compel  an  employer  to  give  up  his  business  relations  with 
another  employer  or  to  cease  patronizing  another  employer  are  illegal. 

Now,  these  are  specific  instances  in  which  the  courts  have  held  that 
strikes  are  illegal. 

COMMISSIONER  LENNON:  Well,  are  there  not  other,  perhaps  more 
numerous,  instances  in  which  the  courts  have  held  strikes  were  not  illegal  ? 

MR.  ROE:  Well,  there  are  many  instances  in  which  the  courts 
have  held  that  a  strike  was  not  illegal. 


224  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

Responsibility  of  Unions  for  Contract  Breaking 
As  pointed  out  before,  these  monopolistic  organizations  are 
not  financially  responsible  for  violations  of  contracts  duly  made, 
or  for  damages  caused  during  labor  disputes.  They  have  many 
times,  when  suit  for  damages  was  brought,  simply  given  the 
answer  that  as  they  have  not  chosen  to  incorporate  they  cannot 
be  held  legally  responsible  for  damages  arising  from  their  actions. 
Such  a  condition  is  conducive  neither  to  efficiency  nor  har- 
mony in  industry,  two  attributes  with  which  the  public  is  vitally 
concerned.  About  one  hundred  years  ago  corporations,  associa- 
tions of  individuals  for  purposes  of  business,  began  to  assume 
prominence.  Since  1870  both  states  and  national  governments 
have  placed  restrictions  upon  these  associations,  restrictions 
designed  to  benefit  the  members  or  stockholders,  other  associa- 
tions, and  the  general  public.  Their  manner  of  organization  and 
methods  of  business  are  carefully  regulated  by  law.  Yet  the 
labor  organizations  which  sponsor  the  closed  shop  bitterly  oppose 
any  and  all  efforts  to  regulate  their  monopoly  and  actions, 
although  they  have  millions  of  members  and  millions  of  dollars, 
their  acts  affecting  the  general  public  for  good  or  ill  as  much 
certainly  as  any  business  aggregation  has  ever  done  or  has  ever 
threatened  to  do.  If  the  public  has  a  right  to  regulate  business 
and  make  it  conform  to  certain  standards,  has  it  not  the  same 
right  to  regulate  combinations  of  labor? 

Should  Unions  Be  Made  Responsible? 

(Testimony  of  James  A.  Emery,  General  Counsel  for  the 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  before  the  Industrial 
Relations  Commission,  May  18,  1915.  Page  10820.) 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH  :  What  is  your  attitude  toward  the  existing  legal 
liability  of  trades  unions,  for  acts  committed  as  organizations?  First, 
should  they  be  liable;  and  if  they  should,  then  how  can  it  thus  be 
enforced — that  liability?  That  would  involve  the  question  as  to  whether 
or  not  they  should  be  incorporated,  and  all  that  you  have  heard? 

MR.  EMERY  :  Yes.  I  believe  that  every  organization  should  be  liable 
for  its  acts.  It  is  axiomatic  to  say  that  there  should  be  no  power  without 
corresponding  responsibility,  no  matter  who  exercises  it  or  what  class  in 
society  exercises  it. 

The  present  state  of  the  law  is  of  course  that  voluntary  associations 
cannot  be  sued  in  state  courts  where  they  have  not  been  given  legal  person- 
ality for  the  purpose  of  suit.  Neither  can  they  sue.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  individual  members  of  the  labor  organization  become  liable  for  the 
acts  of  their  members  within  the  scope  of  their  employment.  That  state 
of  the  law  of  course  results  in  this  that  a  few  individuals  who  have  been 


LEGAL  ASPECTS;  PUBLIC  REGULATION  225 

fortunate  enough  or  provident  or  frugal  enough  to  get  some  of  this 
world's  goods  and  make  a  saving,  become  responsible,  as  a  matter  of  law, 
for  the  more  reckless  or  criminal  of  their  fellow  members — the  condition 
of  course  which  they  recognize  in  associating  themselves  with  them. 
Perhaps,  socially  speaking,  it  may  have  the  effect  of  causing  the  more 
responsible  in  the  material  sense  of  the  word  of  an  organization  to  exert 
their  influence  more  in  the  conduct  of  affairs  in  the  organization;  but  it 
has  never  seemed  to  me  an  entirely  just  matter,  but  one  thing  that  is 
difficult  to  avoid  because  of  the  lack  of  pecuniary  responsibility  of  those 
here  composing  the  labor  organizations. 

The  incorporation  of  trades  unions  is  a  matter  upon  which  I  must 
confess  I  have  had  a  divided  opinion  because  of  the  naked  difficulty  of 
the  incorporation — the  difficulty  of  limiting  the  liability  with  due  regard 
for  the  rights  of  those  who  may  be  injured  by  the  acts  of  the  combination. 
It  is  easy  to  incorporate  them  to  such  a  point  that,  not  having  of  course 
capital  stock  or  share  capital  they  might  dispose  of  their  funds  in  such  a 
manner  that  a  suit  is  vain.  And  predicting  my  conclusion  on  the  proposi- 
tion that  no  organization  should  be  permitted  to  exert  power  that  will  not 
be  responsible  for  the  injury  that  it  may  do  others  when  the  exertion 
of  that  power  is  injurious,  it  seems  to  me  that  an  incorporation  in  the 
ordinary  acceptance  of  the  term  "incorporate"  is  not  sufficient;  but  that  the 
state  should  probably  give  labor  organizations  a  legal  status — I  am  speak- 
ing of  the  organization  as  such  irrespective  of  its  members — so  that  it 
can  sue  and  be  sued  as  voluntary  associations  may  be  and  assume  such 
control  or  provide  for  such  control  of  its  funds  as  will  make  it  responsible 
within  its  limit  for  such  injuries  as  it  does.  I  say  this  with  respect  to 
labor  organizations,  but  it  has  reference  also  to  organizations  of  employers, 
or  to  any  organization  that  can  be  party  to  labor  disputes  resulting  in 
injury  to  others.  I  do  not  care  whether  it  is  the  immediate  parties  to  the 
dispute,  or  the  innocent  bystander  that  gets  shot  in  the  course  of  the 
conflict,  he  is  entitled  to  reparation  for  that  injury. 

(Excerpts  from  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations 
Commission,  May  17,  1915,  of  Mr.  Walter  Drew,  Counsel  for 
the  National  Erectors'  Association.) 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  obsolete  doctrines  of  the  common 
law  in  their  relation  to  the  labor  movement,  and  also  about  the  failure  of 
our  courts  to  keep  pace  with  the  progressive  development  of  modern  social 
and  industrial  thought.  Yet  what  principle  of  our  industrial  law  can  be 
considered  as  so  unfitted  to  our  present  industrial  system,  so  obsolete  from 
every  standpoint  of  social  and  industrial  ethics  at  the  present  time,  as  this 
same  ancient  rule  that  a  voluntary  association,  no  matter  what  its  power 
or  its  resources  or  its  aims  and  purposes,  or  its  actual  invasion  of  the 
rights  of  society,  shall  be  permitted  to  do  what  injury  it  pleases,  lawfully 
or  unlawfully,  without  any  legal  responsibility?  In  the  old  days  the 
principles  of  the  law  of  conspiracy  were  so  strict  and  so  rigidly  enforced 
that  any  combination  for  trade  purposes  of  either  masters  or  workmen 
was  held  illegal  and  even  criminal.  No  necessity,  therefore,  existed  for 
the  possession  by  third  parties  of  any  right  of  action  against  industrial 
associations.  Now,  with  the  old  common  law  of  conspiracy  so  modified 


226  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

as  to  permit  the  widest  latitude  in  combination,  and  with  the  great  increase 
in  the  power  of  industrial  organizations,  with  consequent  greater  ability 
to  inflict  injury,  distinctly  new  conditions  have  come  about  and  a  need 
has  been  created  on  the  part  of  the  rest  of  society  for  protection  which 
did  not  before  exist  in  such  character  or  degree. 

The  establishment  of  the  trade-union  upon  a  proper  basis  of  legal 
responsibility  is  a  simple  matter.  It  could  be  accomplished  either  by  incor- 
poration of  the  union  through  its  own  initiative  under  the  Federal  or 
State  Acts  permitting  such  incorporation,  or*  it  could  be  accomplished  by 
the  passage  of  laws  permitting  actions  for  damages  for  either  tort  or 
breach  of  contract  to  be  brought  against  trade  organizations  in  their 
own  names,  and  making  any  judgment  secured  collectible  out  of  the  funds 
of  the  association.  In  a  few  states  statutes  permitting  voluntary  associa- 
tions to  sue  and  be  sued  in  the  association  name  have  been  enacted,  but 
it  is  very  questionable  if  under  such  statutes  any  action  is  possible  except 
against  an  association  domiciled  in  a  particular  state.  Whether  a  national 
organization  extending  ever  many  states  could  be  held  under  such  a  local 
statute  is  exceedingly  doubtful,  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
headquarters  of  different  national  unions  are  located  in  states  where  no 
such  statutes  exist. 

Union  Objections  to  Responsibility  Analyzed 

MR.  DREW:  So  far  as  present  statute  law  is  concerned,  therefore,  it 
remains  the  general  fact  that  trade-unions  are  practically  immune  from 
legal  responsibility  in  this  country. 

Of  such  suggestions,  Mr.  Gompers,  in  his  report  as  president  to  the 
convention  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  in  November,  1904, 
says :  "We  still  frequently  hear  the  proposition  urged  for  the  incorpora- 
tion of  trade-unions,  the  evident  purpose  of  many  advocates  being  honor- 
able and  sympathetic,  notwithstanding  how  unwise  and  injurious  the 
results  would  unquestionably  be  to  labor.  Others,  again,  who  advocate 
and  insist  upon  the  incorporation  of  the  trade-unions  know  full  well  the 
purpose  they  have  in  view  and  the  schemes  they  could  then  hatch  to 
harass  organized  labor  still  more  with  suits  at  law,  regardless  of  the  flimsi- 
ness  of  the  cause  or  the  pretext  for  civil  suits.  They  would  not  only 
divert  our  attention  from  the  effort  at  economic  improvement  to  a  defense 
against  every  species  of  civil  suits  brought  by  our  opponents  against  any 
officers  of  organized  labor,  but  they  would  make  every  effort  'under  the 
forms  of  law'  to  mulct  our  unions  in  damages  for  supposed  injurious 
results  from  trade-union  action." 

Mr.  Gompers  then  points  out  that  the  chief  argument  for  union 
incorporation  is  that  it  would  bring  about  equality  of  responsibility 
between  the  union  and  the  employers  in  cases  of  breach  of  contract,  and 
he  insists  that  such  a  claim  has  no  foundation,  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
employers,  in  spite  of  their  many  violations  of  trade  agreements,  have 
not  been  held  in  damages  for  such  violations.  In  the  hearing  before  this 
commission  at  New  York,  Mr.  Gompers  reaffirmed  his  opposition  to  any 
incorporation  of  the  unions,  his  reason  there  being  that  legal  responsi- 
bility on  the  part  of  the  union  would  be  made  use  of  by  the  employer  to 
harass  and  to  oppress  with  unfounded  suits. 


LEGAL  ASPECTS;  PUBLIC  REGULATION  227 

Such  reasons  for  preserving  a  condition  of  legal  irresponsibility  are, 
of  course,  no  reasons  at  all.  Equally  well  might  it  be  said  that  no  action 
for  damages  should  exist  against  any  of  us  because,  forsooth,  our  enemies 
may  subject  us  to  unwarranted  litigation.  Neither  is  it  true  that  the 
chief  reason  for  trade-union  responsibility  is  to  secure  equality  with  the 
employer  in  making  of  contracts.  That  of  course  is  one  reason  and 
a  most  important  one,  and  it  would  seem  that  no  one  more  than  the  unions 
themselves  should  be  interested  in  taking  every  step  possible  to  put 
organized  labor  in  the  position  of  being  able  to  make  a  business  contract 
to  which  there  should  be  two  responsible  contracting  parties  and  the 
basis  of  which  should  be  mutual  interest,  mutual  respect,  and  mutual 
responsibility.  Such  condition  would  do  more  than  any  other  one  thing 
I  can  think  of  to  extend  collective  bargaining  and  to  place  it  upon  an 
employer  in  the  making  of  contracts.  That,  of  course,  is  one  reason,  and 
stable  and  firm  foundation. 

But  aside  from  all  questions  of  contract,  why,  in  all  fairness,  should 
not  a  labor  organization  be  responsible  in  damages  to  others  whose 
rights  it  unlawfully  invades?  It  has  been  suggested  during  the  hearing 
of  this  Commission  that  civil  responsibility  on  the  part  of  unions  would 
interfere  with  their  democratic  development,  the  inference  being  that  the 
working  out  of  the  democratic  principle  in  a  trade-union  is  too  important 
to  be  jeopardized  by  any  sifch  harsh  principle  as  legal  responsibility  to  the 
other  members  of  society.  The  application  of  such  a  principle  to  an 
industrial  organization,  the  basic  essentials  of  which  should  be  economic 
and  not  political,  is  scarcely  deserving  discussion;  yet  even  from  the 
standpoint  and  in  the  spirit  such  suggestion  is  advanced  it  falls  before  the 
first  commonplace  observation.  Our  cities  are  organized  and  adminis- 
tered on  a  democratic  basis.  In  them  society  at  large  is  working  out  the 
experiment  of  democracy,  yet  for  that  reason  no  immunity  is  granted 
the  city  from  liability  on  its  bond  or  its  contracts;  and  if  a  city  unlaw- 
fully infringes  your  rights  or  mine,  we  can  maintain  an  action  at  law 
and  recover  damages  therefor.  Why,  then,  should  not  a  labor  organization, 
which  is  organized  for  the  primary  purpose  of  promoting  the  interests 
of  its  members  as  opposed  to  the  interests  of  other  classes  of  society,  be 
legally  responsible  for  its  conduct,  and  is  not  such  absence  of  responsi- 
bility one  of  the  most  retarding  influences  in  the  growth  and  development 
of  the  union  towards  its  true  and  proper  place  as  a  permanent  industrial 
institution? 

The  Unions  and  the  Law 

(Statements  made  by  closed  shop  "labor"  leaders  as  to  their 
attitude  towards  obeying  state  and  national  laws,  and  judicial 
decisions  based  upon  these  laws.  No  comment  is  needed.) 

vSaid  Mr.  John  Mitchell,  vice-president  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  at  an  annual  meeting  of  the  National  Civic 
Federation : 

I  wish  to  say  for  myself,  and  I  yield  to  no  one  living  in  loyalty  to 
this  country,  that  if.  a  judge  were  to  enjoin  me  from  doing  something 
that  I  had  a  legal,  a  Constitutional,  and  a  moral  right  to  do,  that  I  would 
violate  the  injunction.  I  shall,  as  one  American,  preserve  my  liberty 


228  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

and  the  liberties  of  my  people,  even  against  the  usurpation  of  the  Federal 
judiciary. 

The  President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  in  con- 
nection with  the  injunction  sought  in  the  Bucks  Stove  and  Range 
case,  in  a  Labor  Day  speech  at  the  Jamestown  Exposition,  said: 

I  desire  to  be  clearly  understood  that  when  any  court  undertakes 
without  warrant  of  law  by  the  injunction  process  to  deprive  me  of  my 
personal  rights  and  my  personal  liberty  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution, 
I  shall  have  no  hesitancy  in  asserting  and  exercising  those  rights. 

After  the  injunction  was  issued,  Mr.  Gompers,  writing  in  the 
Federatiomst,  said  as  to  the  rights  of  laboring  men: 

They  have  a  lawful  right  to  do  as  they  wish,  all  the  Van  Cleaves, 
all  the  injunctions,  all  the  fool  or  vicious  opponents  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding. *  *  *  Go  to  with  your  injunctions. 

After  the  injunction  was  issued  against  the  strike  of  the  coal 
miners  in  the  fall  of  1919,  the  Executive  Committee  of  the 
Federation  of  Labor  issued  a  bitter  statement  in  criticism  of  the 
action  of  the  Government,  which  concluded: 

By  all  the  facts  in  the  case  the  miners'  strike  is  justifiable.  We 
endorse  it.  We  pledge  to  the  miners  the  full  support  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  and  appeal  to  the  workers  and  the  citizenship  of 
our  country  to  give  like  endorsement  to  the  men  engaged  in  this 
momentous  struggle. 

The  President  of  the  American  Federation*  of  Labor,  in  the 
leading  editorial  in  the  February,  1921,  American  Federatiomst, 
declares : 

We  cannot  admit  that  the  (United  States  Supreme)  Court  has  a 
right  to  define  those  rights  (of  a  labor  union). 

Representatives  of  109  national  and  international  unions 
affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  made  public 
in  Washington,  February  23,  1921,  a  "Bill  of  Rights."  This 
demanded : 

Removal  by  Congress  of  the  usurped  power  of  courts  to  declare 
unconstitutional  laws  enacted  by  Congress. 

It  was  declared  that  labor  unions  must  refuse  to  recognize  or 
abide  by  the  terms  of  injunctions  which  in  their  opinion  seek  to 
prohibit  the  doing  of  acts  which  they  have  a'  lawful  and  guaran- 
teed right  to  do  or  compel  acts  they  have  the  same  right  to  refuse 
to  do. 

This  is  the  only  immediate  course  through  which  labor  can  find 
relief  and  this  course  it  proposes  to  pursue  *  *  *  be  the  consequences 
what  they  may. 


LEGAL  ASPECTS;  PUBLIC  REGULATION  229 

Attitude  of  Courts  Towards  Labor 

(Views  of  Mr.  Daniel  Davenport,  Counsel  for  the  American 
Anti-Boycott  Association,  expressed  before  the  Industrial  Rela- 
tions Commission,  May  15,  1915.  Pages  10704-10706  of  the 
testimony.) 

Now,  something  has  been  said  which  would  indicate  that  in  the  opinion 
of  some,  and,  I  think,  from  what  I  saw  in  the  newspapers  it  was 
expressed  by  the  distinguished  lawyer,  notable  Justice  Clark,  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  North  Carolina,  and  by  Mr.  Gregory,  if  he  was 
properly  reported,  that  the  attitude  of  the  courts  toward  labor,  and 
toward  organized  labor  particularly,  is  unjust.  Now,  I  thought  that  I 
would  call  attention  to  the  real  facts  about  the  matter.  They  are  blanket 
charges;  they  are  generalities.  What  specific  case  do  they  name  as 
indicative  of  that?  Take  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  to 
which  reference  was  made.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mission to  the  fact  that  in  the  first  place  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  as  established  absolutely  protect  the  rights 
of  all  labor,  in  the  first  place,  and,  in  the  second,  that  the  rights  of 
organized  labor  are  supported  and  sustained  by  that  body,  and  on 
that  point,  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  commission  to  one 
or  two  authorities,  quotations  from  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States ;  and  the  first  is  in  the  case  of  Live 
Stock  Association  against — in  the  slaughterhouse  cases^  in  83  U.  S., 
page  36:  "It  is  one  of  the  privileges  of  every  American  citizen  to 
adopt  and  follow  such  lawful  industrial  pursuits,  not  injurious  to  the 
community,  as  he  may  see  fit,  without  unreasonable  regulation  or 
molestation,  and  without  being  restricted  by  any  of  those  unjust,  oppres- 
sive, and  odious  monopolies  or  exclusive  privileges  which  have  been  con- 
demned by  all  free  governments.  There  is  no  more  sacred  right  of  /-< 
citizenship  than  the  right  to  pursue  unmolested  a  lawful  employment 
in  a  lawful  manner.  It  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  sacred  right 
of  labor." 

That  was  by  Mr.  Justice  Field,  and  in  the  same  volume,  83  U.  S., 
page  366,  it  was  said  by  Mr.  Justice  Miller: 

"For  the  preservation,  exercise,  and  enjoyment  of  these  rights  the 
individual  citizen  as  a  necessity  must  be  left  free  to  adopt  such  calling, 
profession,  or  trade  as  may  seem  to  him  most  conducive  to  that  end.    I 
Without  this  right  he  can  not  be  a  free  man.     This  right  to  choose  one's    I  t 
calling  is  an  essential  part  of  that  liberty  which  it  is  the  object  to  pro-   / 
tect;  and  a  calling  when  chosen  is  a  man's  property  and  right.     Liberty 
and    property    are    not    protected    where    these    rights    are    arbitrarily 
assailed." 

And  in  the  case  of  the  Butchers'  Union  vs.  Crescent  City,  in  U.  S., 
757,  the  court  says: 

"The  common  business  and  callings  of  life,  the  ordinary  trades  and 
pursuits  which  are  innocuous  in  themselves,  and  have  been  followed  in 
all  communities  from  time  immemorial,  must  therefore,  be  free  in  this 
country  to  all  alike  upon  the  same  conditions.  The  right  to  pursue 
them  without  let  or  hindrance,  except  that  which  is  applied  to  all 


230  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

persons  of  the  same  age,  sex,  and  condition,  is  a  distinguishing  privilege 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  an  essential  element  of  that  free- 
dom which  they  claim  as  their  birthright." 

Now,  so  much  for  the  general  attitude,  the  attitude  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  toward  the  right  of  labor  in  general. 

Now,  in  regard  to  organized  labor.  Has  it  been  suggested  by  any- 
one that  there  is  any  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  that  is  antagon- 
istic to  that  right?  On  the  contrary,  as  I  pointed  out  yesterday,  in  the 
first  place,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  decided,  in  the 
case  of  Adair  against  the  United  States,  208  U.  S.,  that  it  is  beyond  the 
power  of  Congress  to  interfere  with  rights  of  men  to  form  unions  in 
interstate  trade.  That  power  to  regulate  interstate  trade  did  riot  em- 
brace the  right  to  say  whether  or  not  a  man  shall  or  shall  not  belong  to 
a  union.  But  they  have  gone  further.  Has  it  not  been  for  years  the 
contention  of  labor  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  legislatures  of  the 
States  and  Congress  to  exempt  labor  unions  from  the  operation  of  these 
laws  which  prohibit,  as  against  the  producer  and  seller  and  dealer  in 
commodities.  That  contention  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  upheld  in  the 
case  of  Coppage  vs.  Kansas  in  the  236  U.  S. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  You  mean  an  organization  for  profit 
or  not  for  profit? 

MR.  DAVENPORT:  No,  sir;  between  the  vendors  for  service  and  the 
vendor  of  the  product  of  their  service.  That  distinction  is  written  into 
the  law  of  this  country,  and  in  the  institutions  of  this  country,  by  the 
action  of  the  Supreme  Court  only  last  winter.  So  much  for  that. 

Unions  and  Boycotts 

Now,  in  the  next  place,  no  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  been 
made  in  regard  to  the  right  to  boycott  that  has  not  been  made  at  the 
instance  of  the  labor  unions.  The  first  decision  of  any  consequence  in 
this  country  to  the  effect  that  a  boycott  was  not  only  illegal  but  criminal 
and  heinously  criminal  was  made  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  upon  the  demand  and  upon  the  request  of  the  labor  unions.  That 
principle  was  written  into  the  law,  not  upon  the  argument  of  any  repre- 
sentative of  any  plutocrat,  but  upon  the  representation  and  arguments 
of  the  labor  unions,  and  when  any  man,  be  he  the  former  president  of 
the  American  Bar  Association  or  the  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
North  Carolina,  comes  here  and  tells  you  that  the  decisions  of  tfie 
Supreme  Court  as  to  the  legality  or  illegality  of  boycotts  by  labor  unions 
is  an  indication  of  any  partiality  on  the  part  of  the  courts  to  the 
employers,  he  is  utterly  at  sea  and  ignorant  in  regard  to  the  history  of 
the  law. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:  Have  you  in  mind  the  case  you  referred 
to  where  the  labor  asked  the  Supreme  Court — 

MR.  DAVENPORT:    The  case  of  Callan  vs.  Wilson,  137  U.  S. 

COMMISSIONER  O'CONNELL:    What  was  the  organization? 

MR.  DAVENPORT:     The  Knights  of  Labor  and  the  musicians'  union. 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH:     You  cited  that  yesterday?, 

MR.  DAVENPORT:  And  it  was  done  on  the  demand  of  Mr.  Ralston, 
who  represented  those  men,  that  such  an  offense  as  that  was  no  petty 


LEGAL  ASPECTS;  PUBLIC  REGULATION  231 

offense  for  which  a  man  could  be  held  without  a  jury,  but  a  most  heinous 
crime  against  society,  to  boycott,  and  the  Supreme  Court  accepted  his  argu- 
ment, and  adopted  his  principle,  and  wrote  it  into  the  jurisprudence  of  the 
United  States,  not  upon  the  demand  of  any  employer,  but  upon  the  demand 
of  the  unions,  just  and  proper.  But  whenever  we  hear  it  said  that  the 
rights  of  labor  are  invaded  by  the  courts,  either  the  Supreme  Court 
or  any  inferior  court,  when  they  hold  men  there  responsible  either  in 
damages  or  criminally,  or  enjoin  them  for  boycotting,  remember  that  was 
obtained  by  the  unions,  and  for  the  protection  of  the  unions  against  the 
action  of  the  Government. 

Well,  now,  that  is  the  other  case.  Why,  in  my  time  there  have 
been  three  noted  cases  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  bear- 
ing upon  these  matters;  the  first  was  the  case  in  re  Debs,  158  U.  S., 
which  followed  along  after,  about  30  volumes  later  than  the  case  to  which 
I  refer.  The  second  is  the  great  case  of  Loewe  vs.  Lawler,  208  U.  S., 
and  the  case  of  Gompers  vs.  The  United  States. 

Now,  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  this  commission  to  the  fact  that 
every  principle  laid  down  in  the  Debs  case  has  been  approved  of  and 
has  been  clamored  for  by  the  labor  unions  and  by  their  action  they  have 
secured  the  enactment  of  legislation  which  has  crystallized  in  the  form 
of  a  statute  every  proposition  laid  down  in  that  case. 

Now,  of  course,  we  all  know  how  that  case  originated.  The  United 
States  Government  went  into  a  United  States  court  of  equity  and  secured 
an  injunction  against  the  American  Railway  Union,  and  other  unions, 
against  obstructing  the  commerce  and  the  passage  of  the  mails  by  these 
gentlemen.  The  injunction  was  granted,  and  Mr.  Debs  violated  it,  and 
Mr.  Debs  was  brought  up  in  court  to  show  cause  why  he  should  not 
be  punished  for  contempt,  for  violating  the  injunction  which  had  been 
issued  by  Chief  Justice  Fuller.  On  the  trial  he  made  the  claim  that  he 
was  constitutionally  entitled  to  a  trial  by  jury,  and  that  claim  was  over- 
ruled. He  claimed  further  that  injunction  was  void  because  it  interfered 
with  personal  rights  of  the  employes.  He  claimed,  also,  that  it  was — 
the  acts,  that  they  sought  to  enjoin,  were  criminal  acts,  and  that  an  injunc- 
tion for  that  purpose  was  prohibited  for  constitutional  reasons.  That 
case  went  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  court  held  these  things :  First, 
that  the  injunction  was  properly  issued;  a  familiar  exercise  of  equity 
power.  Second,  that  when  charged  with  a  violation  of  it  Mr.  Debs  was 
not  entitled  constitutionally  to  trial  by  jury.  The  third  was  that  the 
acts  which  he  did,  either  they  were  crimes  for  which  he  was  tried, 
and  he  was  not  entitled  to  a  trial  by  jury.  Every  principle  that  is  there 
established  is  written  down  literally  in  the  Clayton  bill,  at  the  request 
and  at  the  demand  of  the  labor  unions. 


Can  the  Government  Discriminate? 

In  view  of  the  well-known  friendly  and  sympathetic  rela- 
tions between  the  national  administration  and  organized  labor 
during  war  time,  the  following  official  utterances  are  of  especial 
significance : 

Order  of  Mr.   McAdoo,  Director   General  of  Railroads:     "No   dis- 


232  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

crimination  will  be  made  in  the  employment,  retention,  or  conditions  of 
employment,  of  employes  because  of  membership  or  non-membership  in 
labor  organizations." 

Provision  in  Awards  of  the  Shipyard  Labor  Adjustment  Board:  "The 
Board  will  not  tolerate  any  discrimination  either  on  the  part  of  employers 
or  employes  between  union  and  non-union  men." 

Statement  in  Principles  of  the  National  War  Labor  Board :  "In  estab- 
lishments where  union  and  non-union  men  now  work  together  and  the 
employer  meets  only  with  employes  or  representatives  engaged  in  such 
establishments,  the  continuance  of  such  conditions  shall  not  be  deemed 
a  grievance." 

Ex-President  Taft,  in  a  public  statement,  explaining  the  above  prin- 
ciple, said:  "If  the  employer  in  an  open  shop  insists  on  the  so-called 
family  arrangement  by  which  he  deals  only  with  his  employes  or  a  com- 
mittee elected  from  them,  it  shall  be  no  grievance  if  he  declines  to  deal 
with  a  delegate  of  the  union  not  his  employe.  So,  too,  employment  of  non- 
union men  in  an  open  shop  cannot  be  a  grievance  of  union  employes  in 
that  shop." 

Open  Shop  Laws  Opposed 

The  December,  1920,  Bulletin  of  the  Duluth,  Minnesota 
Citizens'  Alliance,  decries  attempts  to  establish  the  open  shop  by 
legislation.  It  declares : 

A  perfect  industrial  system,  or  even  an  approach  to  it,  will  never 
be  established  through  the  coercive  power  of  law.  That  most  desirable 
end,  industrial  peace  and  industrial  prosperity,  will  come  when  the  one 
of  these  two  antagonistic  systems  has  demonstrated,  through  actual  test 
and  experience,  that  it  is  superior  to  the  other. 

The  enactment  of  a  law  will  not  alone  insure  its  success ;  that  depends 
upon  a  widespread  recognition  of  its  necessity  among  the  people,  and  as 
the  result  of  mature  and  long  considered  deliberation. 

The  proper  solution  of  these  important  questions  will  never  be 
arrived  at  through  the  remedies  proposed  by  politicians  and  statesmen, 
but  will  be  obtained  as  the  result  of  a  common  consent,  based  upon 
actual  experience,  as  worked  out  in  the  factory,  shop,  and  in  the 
general  field  of  industry. 

The  advocates  of  the  "open  shop"  policy  believe  that  it  is  beneficent, 
and  they  believe  that  the  "closed  shop"  policy  is  pernicious,  but,  unless 
we  have  mistaken  the  temper  of  those  who  support  it,  they  will  stand 
almost  to  a  man  in  opposition  to  any  attempt  to  force  it  upon  the  country 
by  law. 

One  of  the  most  vicious  tendencies  in  our  national  life  is  the  disposi- 
tion to  attempt  to  settle  and  finally  dispose  of  all  the  ills  from  which 
humanity  is  suffering  by  legislation. 

If  the  open  shop  is  right  in  principle,  it  needs  no  law  to  bolster  it 
up;  it  will  demonstrate  its  own  necessity,  its  own  efficacy. 


TYPICAL  DEBATERS'  ARGUMENTS  233 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 
Typical  Debaters'  Arguments 

Some  Hints  to  Debaters 

Do  not  resort  to  tricks  or  devices.  If  you  have  something  to  say 
it  is  not  necessary.  If  you  have  nothing  to  talk  about  you  are  wasting 
your  own  and  your  hearers'  time. 

If  you  are  unable  to  make  your  audience  forget  your  voice,  gesture, 
and  personality  while  you  are  speaking  you  have  failed  as  a  speaker. 
Your  audience  should  be  aware  only  of  the  truth  you  utter.  Your  object 
is  to  instruct  and  convince.  To  do  so  it  is  not  necessary  to  talk  loudly. 
Artificial  devices,  studied  gestures,  etc.,  attract  the  attention  of  the 
audience,  but  not  to  the  subject-matter  of  your  discourse.  The  thought 
presented  should  monopolize  the  auditor's  attention. 

Your  words  should  teach  and  instruct.  To  do  so  they  must  assert. 
Do  not  put  in  so  many  modifying  expressions,  such  as  "in  my  opinion," 
"I  may  be  wrong,"  etc.,  that  your  audience  doubts  your  real  belief  in  the 
principles  you  uphold. 

Few  great  speeches  ever  contain  wit  or  humor.  Even  Lincoln,  the 
greatest  of  modern  story-tellers,  never  used  humor  in  any  of  his  half 
dozen  greatest  public  utterances.  The  strength  of  your  argument  should 
hold  the  attention  of  your  audience.  When  you  are  wearying  your 
audience  so  that  it  is  necessary  to  amuse  them  it  is  time  to  quit. 

Do  not  waste  time.  Get  to  the  point.  Your  time  will  probably  be 
limited ;  make  the  most  of  it.  Short  sentences  and  Anglo-Saxon  words 
are  best.  Hammer  home  by  repetition  the  vital  truths  you  seek  to  present. 
If  you  are  proved  in  error  on  any  point  be  quick  to  admit  it. 

Speak  directly  to  the  audience.  See  to  it  especially  that  the  judges 
can  hear  you.  The  temptation  to  turn  to  your  opponents  when  answering 
their  arguments  is  great.  The  writer  of  these  lines  once  lost  a  debate 
because  he  did  this  and  the  judges  could  not  clearly  hear  all  he  said. 

Analyze  the  problem  and  prepare  an  outline  before  you  commence 
to  read  extensively.  As  your  knowledge  of  the  problem  expands  it  may 
be  necessary  to  revise  your  outline. 

Know  the  arguments  of  the  opposition;  try  to  have  an  answer 
prepared  in  advance  for  every  argument  of  theirs  of  which  you  can 
think.  Do  not  waste  time  talking  about  points  the  truth  of  which  has 
been  admitted  by  your  opponents.  In  every  speech  try  to  answer  at 
least  one  of  their  points. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  answer  in  order  your  opponent's  arguments. 
If  you  do  so  you  may  find  that  time  is  called  on  you  when  several,  per- 
haps the  most  important,  have  not  been  touched.  Answer  only  those 
points  which  are  important. 

Place  your  reliance  upon  facts.  Do  not  "denounce,"  play  to  the 
audience,  or  try  to  make  sentences  which  sound  well  but  when  analyzed 
mean  nothing.  Your  conflict  is  with  principles,  not  with  personalities. 

Do  not  fail  to  point  out  important  arguments  you  have  made  which 


234  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

the  opposition  has  not  attempted  to  answer  or  has  unsuccessfully  attempted 
to  meet. 

Every  speech  should  have  a  strong  close.  This  can  in  most  cases 
be  prepared  in  advance. 

Do  not  have  your  least  experienced  and  effective  speaker  give  the 
first  speech.  The  proposition  needs  to  be  clearly  presented,  and  the  first 
speaker  can  do  much  to  obtain  a  favorable  hearing  for  his  colleagues. 
He  should  not  try  to  cover  the  entire  field  of  the  argument  but  should 
prepare  the  way  for  his  colleagues.  He  should  define,  eliminate  irrelevant 
material,  concede  what  is  immaterial  to  his  side  of  the  case,  and  clearly 
state  the  real  issues  involved.  He  can  usually  begin  the  discussion. 

Prepare  a  brief  and  divide  the  topics  to  be  discussed;  let  each  speaker 
hold  to  the  topics  allotted  to  him,  making  his  own  arguments  effective. 
Every  speaker  should  refer  to  what  his  colleagues  have  already  said  and 
show  how  his  own  argument  strengthens  an  already  strong  case.  Do  not 
try  to  cover  all  the  possible  points ;  cover  the  fundamental  ones  well. 

When  time  is  called  quit. 

(Extracts  from  speeches  in  favor  of  the  Open  Shop,  deliv- 
ered by  representatives  of  Northwestern  University,  in  an  inter- 
collegiate debate  with  Chicago  University.  The  full  speeches  of 
both  sides  are  printed  in  Volume  I,  of  "Intercollegiate  Debates," 
published  by  Hinds,  Noble  and  Eldredge.  Reprinted  by  permis- 
sion ;  the  publishers  do  not  wish  to  be  considered  as  endorsing  in 
any  way  either  the  closed  or  open  shop.) 

The  affirmative  speaker  has  told  you  that  every  man  outside  of  the 
union  is  an  injury  to  every  man  within  the  union.  This  is  the  plea 
upon  which  all  trade  unions  base  their  demand  for  the  "closed  shop."  But 
their  contention  is  far  from  being  true.  The  acts  of  the  trade  union  itself 
repudiate  this  assertion.  The  very  fact  that  all  trade  unions  exclude 
many  men  from  their  ranks,  is  ample  proof  of  the  fact  that  they  do  not, 
and  need  not  fear  the  honest  competition  of  the  non-union  man. 

But  even  if  this  competition  were  dangerous  we  would  place  beside 
the  assertions  of  the  affirmative  that  famous  and  eloquent  passage  in  the 
report  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission :  "However  irritating  it 
may  be  to  see  men  enjoy  benefits,  to  the  obtaining  of  which  they  refuse  to 
contribute,  the  fact  remains  that  every  man  has  the  right  to  dispose  of 
1  his  personal  service  as  he  sees  fit." 

Not  only  is  the  closed  shop  to  be  justified  for  organized  labor  as  a 
whole,  but  we  must  consider  its  effect  upon  all  parties  affected  by  the 
agreement.  We  must  take  a  broader  view  of  the  question  than  has  been 
taken  by  the  gentlemen  of  the  affirmative.  We  must  consider  the  effects 
of  the  "closed  shop"  upon  the  non-union  man,  whom  it  excludes ;  upon  the 
employer  whom  it  antagonizes;  upon  the  public  which  it  would  have  the 
power  to  exploit;  and  upon  those  fundamental  rights,  which  are  the  basis 
of  American  government,  and  which  the  "closed  shop"  seems  to  repudiate. 

We  mean  to  show  that  this  "closed  shop"  is  dangerous ;  that  violence  is 
the  only  method  of  attaining  it ;  that  it  is  an  economic  disadvantage ;  that  it 
violates  the  rights  of  the  employer  and  the  individual  workman;  and  that 


TYPICAL  DEBATERS'  ARGUMENTS  235 

it  destroys  the  freedom  of  contract.  This  means  a  sultanic  power  which 
under  present  labor  conditions,  naturally  is,  and  would  be,  greatly  abused. 

We  admit  that  labor  organizations  have  helped  to  remedy  many  indus- 
trial wrongs;  but  nevertheless,  they  contain  inherent  evils  and  manifest 
many  dangerous  tendencies.  These  tendencies  are  matters  of  common 
knowledge.  It  is  generally  conceded  that  labor  organizations  crowd  down 
the  best  man  to  the  level  of  the  poorest ;  that  by  unduly  limiting  the  num- 
ber of  apprentices,  they  keep  many  men  from  learning  a  trade;  that  they 
have  changed  peaceful  picketing  and  moral  persuasion  into  intimidation; 
that  they  resort  to  violence  and  even  murder  to  carry  out  their  designs  and 
pay  the  fines  of  members  found  guilty  of  criminal  assault;  and  that  they 
place  the  demands  of  the  union  above  those  of  the  state,  society  and  reli- 
gion. Certainly  an  organization  with  so  many  inherent  evils  cannot,  with 
propriety,  claim  the  right  to  rule  industry.  For  there  is  absolutely  no  as- 
surance that  an  organization  guilty  of  the  abuse  of  great  power,  will  not 
be  guilty  of  far  greater  abuses,  if  entrusted  with  supreme  power.  For 
when  an  employer  agrees  to  hire  only  members  of  a  trade  union  he  gives 
his  consent,  in  effect^  to  every  evil  in  the  makeup  of  that  union.  This 
means  a  continuation  and  an  aggravation  of  these  evils;  for  it  destroys 
the  possibility  of  their  elimination  by  an  enlightened  public  opinion.  Such 
an  experiment  is  dangerous,  and  hence  the  "closed  shop"  is  unjustifiable. 

The  same  restriction  is  true  with  regard  to  the  industries  of  this 
country.  The  United  Garment  Workers  have  so  restricted  the  output  of 
the  St.  Louis  clothing  houses  that  two  of  the  largest  firms  have  been  com- 
pelled to  go  out  of  business.  And  this  statement  is  made  upon  the  author- 
ity of  the  official  organ  of  the  union  itself.  This  indefensible  curtailment 
of  production,  which  by  all  laws  of  logic  and  precedent,  must  be  greatly 
aggravated  by  the  "closed  shop,"  is  at  once  disastrous  to  the  employer; 
demoralizing  to  the  workman  himself;  and  destructive  of  American  com- 
mercial supremacy. 

The  last  speaker  asserted  that  unions  do  not  restrict  output  I  hold 
in  my  hand  a  letter  from  the  Kellogg  Company,  dated  yesterday,  that 
states  that  they  have  increased  their  output  under  "open  shop"  conditions 
from  forty  to  fifty  per  cent,  that  their  men  are  better  satisfied  because  they 
receive  more  wages.  To  prove  to  you  that  the  Plumbers  restrict  output, 
I  cite  you  the  case  of  a  master  plumber  of  Chicago,  Mr.  Frewin,  who 
by  special  effort  did  seven  days'  work  in  five  hours.  To-day  in  England  a 
mason  lays  only  400  bricks,  whereas  he  formerly  laid  1,000.  What  do  you 
call  that  but  restriction?  When  British  printing  must  be  done  in  Hol- 
land, what  do  you  call  that  but  restriction?  The  gentleman  says  that 
unions  in  England  do  not  restrict  output.  Carroll  D.  Wright  says,  "I 
will  shortly  publish  statistics  that  will  show  conclusively  that  unions  in 
England  restrict  output."  The  gentleman  has  told  you  that  the  railway 
unions  are  "closed  shop"  institutions,  and  yet,  he  admits  that  only  95  per 
cent  of  railway  men  are  in  the  unions;  these  are  not  "closed  shop"  insti- 
tutions. 

Now,  we  are  not  arguing  trade-unionism.  Each  individual  demand  of 
the  trade  union  must  be  judged  on  its  own  merits,  and  this  demand  for 
the  "closed  shop"  we  maintain  is  not  justifiable.  The  gentleman  has  cited 


236  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

cases  to  show  you  the  success  of  the  "union  shop."  Success  in  what 
particular?  For  the  men  in  the  union?  What  about  the  mass  of  our 
population  that  the  "union  shop"  does  not  help — the  employer,  the  non- 
unionist,  and  the  public  at  large?  He  has  told  you  that  there  are  only  a 
few  strong  unions  that  refuse  applications.  Says  their  national  President 
in  Chicago,  "The  Plumbers  in  Seattle  and  Pittsburgh  have  an  initiation 
fee  of  $50  for  the  very  purpose  of  keeping  men  out  of  the  union." 

They  have  said  that  there  is  no  violence  of  sufficient  import  to  con- 
demn trade  unions,  and  yet  we  submit  that  the  teamsters  of  Chicago, 
who  have  a  "closed  shop"  organization  of  the  kind  and  character  which 
the  gentlemen  defend,  have  stopped  the  ice  wagon  on  the  warmest  day  in 
July  and  the  coal  wagon  on  the  coldest  day  of  January;  they  have  stopped 
the  milk  wagon  when  infant  mortality  was  rising  and  the  hearse  on  the 
way  to  the  grave.  It  needs  little  logic  to  show  that  an  institution  which 
makes  possible  such  public  outrages  should  be  given  absolutely  no  chance 
to  establish  itself. 

There  is  a  simple  way  by  which  the  union  can  obtain  all  the  power  it 
needs,  and  at  the  same  time  avoid  all  the  evils  of  which  I  have  spoken — 
evils  which  are  inseparably  connected  with  the  system  proposed  by  the 
affirmative.  Let  them  eliminate  their  unreasonable  and  violent  leaders, 
and  put  in  their  places  men  who  can  see  both  sides  of  the  labor  problem. 
Let  them  eradicate  their  violent  methods  and  enforce  their  demands  with 
a  decent  regard  to  the  rights  of  others.  Let  them  discontinue  their  infam- 
ous policy  of  restriction  of  output,  and  give  their  employer  an  honest  day's 
work  for  an  honest  day's  pay.  Let  them  no  longer  seek  to  wrest  from 
the  employer  the  rightful  control  of  his  business.  Then  the  labor  union 
will  be  an  unmixed  good.  Then  all  men  will  be  glad  to  treat  with  its 
chosen  representatives.  Then,  and  then  only,  has  the  labor  union  the 
right  to  demand  the  control  of  the  labor  situation.  But  that  control  will  be 
theirs  by  preference  of  both  employer  and  employe,  and  not  by  force  of 
contracts  wrung  from  their  employer  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  constitutional 
rights  of  both  himself  and  the  non-union  man. 

College  Speeches  in  Favor  of  Open  Shop 

(Extracts  from  speeches  in  favor  of  the  Open  Shop,  deliv- 
ered by  representatives  of  Illinois  Wesleyan  University  in  an 
intercollegiate  debate  with  Northwestern  College.  The  full 
speeches  of  both  sides  are  printed  in  Volume  III  of  "Intercollsgi- 
ate  Debates."  Reprinted  by  permission  of  the  publishers,  Hinds, 
Hayden  and  Eldredge,  who  do  not  wish  to  be  considered  as 
endorsing  in  any  way  either  the  closed  or  open  shop.) 

/My  second  contention  is  that  such  a  monopoly  would  be  dangerous 
:o  the  economic  welfare  of  the  country.  The  paramount  evidence  in  sup- 
port of  this  point  is  to  be  found  in  the  restriction  of  output,  which  has  fol- 
lowed in  the  trail  of  the  closed  shop.  In  the  City  of  New  York,  where  the 
closed  shop  has  reached  a  high  state  of  perfection,  the  by-laws  of  the  Lath- 
ers' Union  specify  a  day's  work  not  to  exceed  1,600  laths,  less  than  half  as 
much  as  the  same  men  did  before  the  closed  shop  policy  became  effective. 


TYPICAL  DEBATERS'  ARGUMENTS  237 

The  Plasterers'  Union  limited  its  members  to  performing  less  than  two- 
thirds  the  amount  of  work  that  a  normal  employe  could  do  in  an  eight- 
hour  day.  Union  men  confess  that  they  are  often  able  to  complete  their 
required  day's  work  in  four  hours.  The  by-laws  of  the  Brotherhood  of 
Carpenters  contain  provisions  for  the  punishment  by  fine  or  even  by  ex- 
pulsion of  the  members  found  guilty  of  doing  more  than  the  prescribed 
work  for  an  eight-hour  day.  The  marble  and  tile  setters  of  New  York, 
working  under  highly  perfected  closed  shop  conditions,  have  limited 
the  output  of  a  member  of  that  association  to  less  than  one-third  of  that 
of  a  Chicago  tile  setter  and  to  less  than  half  of  that  which  should  be 
expected.  The  Stone-cutters'  Association  and  the  Stone  Traders  of  New 
York  have  entered  into  an  agreement  by  which  it  is  impossible  for  stone 
dealers  who  are  not  members  of  the  Stone  Traders'  Association  to  either 
.secure  stone  or  labor  of  any  kind.  Similar  agreements  exist  between  the 
umbers'  Union  and  the  Employers'  Association;  the  members  of  the 
union  work  only  for  the  Employers'  Association  and  vice  versa.  This  is 
conclusive  evidence  both  of  restriction  of  output  and  of  unjust  discrimina- 
tion in  favor  of  both  the  union  and  the  association. 

In  conclusion,  Honorable  Judges,  let  me  say  I  have  shown  that  the 
closed  shop  places  in  the  hands  of  unionists  monopoly  control  over  all 
labor  and  consequently  over  all  industry.  I  have  further  shown  that 
such  a  monopoly  is  dangerous  and  destructive  to  the  economic  welfare  of 
the  country,  because  of  the  general  violence  and  lawlessness  of  methods 
connected  with  strikes,  because  of  restriction  of  output,  and  because  of 
the  limitation  of  membership.  In  the  face  of  these  facts  I  ask  that  you  deny 
that  the  movement  of  organized  labor  for  the  closed  shop  should  receive 
the  support  of  the  American  people. 

Now,  Honorable  Judges,  it  falls  to  my  lot  to  advance  the  negative 
argument  -by  showing,  first  that  with  the  spread  of  closed  shop  movement, 
the  life  of  unionism  depends  more  and  more  upon  limitation  of  mem- 
bership; secondly,  that  such  a  restriction  of  membership,  when  member- 
ship is  the  condition  of  working  in  an  industry  as  it  would  be  under  the 
closed  shop,  would  be  the  exploitation  of  the  men  excluded  by  unionism ; 
and,  thirdly,  that  such  an  exploitation  of  one  class  by  another  is  absolute- 
ly contradictory  to  American  ideals. 

Honorable  Judges,  I  have  established  the  contention  that  owing  to 
the  large  excess  of  workmen  over  jobs,  closed  shop  unionism  must  mean 
closed  unionism.  For  if  the  unions  should  try  to  embrace  all  the  workers 
in  the  organized  industries,  internal  competition  for  the  spoils  of  employ- 
ment would  rend  unionism  asunder,  having  by  its  own  policy  coerced  into 
membership  that  very  element  which  is  most  dangerous  to  its  life.  There- 
fore, since  it  will  restrict  its  membership  to  correspond  to  the  number  of 
jobs  at  its  disposal,  it  will  dislodge  over  one  million  American  workmen 
from  their  chosen  occupations,  and  compel  them  to  secure  what  work  they 
can  in  the  non-unionized  fields.  This  will  only  sharpen  the  competition 
in  these  already  crowded  realms,  and  in  all  the  struggle?  the  low-lived 
foreign  labor  will  have  the  greatest  advantage.  Consequently,  under  the 
closed  shop,  without  restriction  of  membership  unionism  will  perish,  and 
with  restriction  of  membership  unionism  will  not  only  secure,  as  my 


238  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

colleague  has  shown  you,  a  labor  monopoly  which  is  dangerous  to  the  eco- 
nomic welfare  of  the  nation,  but  it  will  also  subject  the  excluded  non- 
unionist,  together  with  all  the  rest  of  the  laborers  of  the  country  outside 
the  union,  to  most  indefensible  wrongs.  In  the  face  of  these  facts  we 
maintain  that  such  a  movement  is  undeserving  of  the  support  of  the 
American  people,  and  we  ask  you  to  defeat  the  resolution. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  effect  of  the  closed  shop  upon  all  the 
parties  involved  in  such  an  agreement.  We  must  not  only  consider  its 
effect  upon  the  non-union  man  whom,  as  shown  by  my  colleague,  it 
excludes,  but  we  must  also  consider  its  effect  upon  the  employer,  whom 
it  binds  hand  and  foot  by  the  fetters  of  its  dominion,  upon  the  public, 
which  it  would  have  the  power  to  exploit,  and  upon  which  it  would 
have  those  basal  principles  of  the  American  Government  which  such  a 
proposition  repudiates. 

Ere  this  it  must  have  become  obvious  to  you  that  the  case  of  the 
non-unionist  is  a  prime  consideration  of  this  entire  discussion.  As  stated 
before,  my  colleague  has  shown  you  that  unions  must  necessarily  limit 
their  membership  under  pain  of  self-destruction,  and  that  such  a  restric- 
tion of  membership  would  be  the  exploitation  of  the  men  excluded.  This, 
in  itself,  is  enough  to  prove  the  undesirability  of  the  closed  shop.  But 
let  us  go  further. 

In  the  words  of  Carroll  D.  Wright,  "A  labor  union  is  a  voluntary 
organization  and  is,  therefore,  like  all  other  organizations,  subordinate  to 
the  laws  of  the  land;  it  cannot  enter  upon  legislation  in  the  establishment 
of  rules  that  are  inimical  to  the  laws  that  apply  to  everyone  else.  Yet, 
the  union,  in  its  endeavor  to  secure  its  own  ends,  sets  itself  up  as  a  dis- 
tinct governing  agency,  assuming  to  control  those  who  do  not  join  it,  and 
to  deny  to  them  the  personal  liberties  which  the  members  claim  for 
themselves  and  which  the  constitution  guarantees  to  all."  From  this  policy 
it  is  self-evident  that  corecion  is  the  only  means  beside  the  attraction  of 
desirability  by  which  the  union  can  hope  to  enlist  the  non-union  man. 
But  the  policy  of  coercion  is  against  the  law.  According  to  the  Supreme 
Court  reports  of  the  State  of  Vermont,  Vol.  59,  page  273,  in  the  case  of 
the  State  vs.  Stewart:  "Every  man  has  the  right  to  employ  his  talents, 
industry  and  capital  as  he  pleases,  free  from  the  dictation  of  others ; 
and  if  two  or  more  persons  combine  to  coerce  his  choice  in  this  behalf 
it  is  criminal  conspiracy. 

Furthermore,  any  discrimination  against  the  non-union  man  is  illegal. 
Judge  Vaughn,  of  the  New  York  Supreme  Court,  cites  seventeen  Federal 
r   cases  showing  that  to  create  or  maintain  a  monopoly  of  labor  is  expressly 
^  prohibited  by  statute,  and  an  injunction  is  authorized  to  prevent  it.    John 
/  R.  Commons,  in  his  volume  on  "Trade  Unionism  and  Labor  Problems," 
page  194,  cites  thirteen  specific  cases  showing  that  the  union  cannot  use 
the  force  of  its  members  to  crush  the  non-union  man.     Thus  the  union 
under  the  closed  shop  either  condemns  itself  under  the  law  by  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  non-unionist,  or  it  must   resort  to   corecion,   which  is   also 
illegal.    Regarding  this,  let  me  again  quote  from  Carroll  D.  Wright,  who 
says :    "A  labor  movement,  or  other  movement,   whose  purpose  can  be 
accomplished  only  by  violation  of  the  law,  has  no  right  to  exist."    Thus  in 


TYPICAL  DEBATERS'  ARGUMENTS  239 

either  case,  Honorable  Judges,  you  are  asked  to  support  a  movement  which 
is  resort  to  illegal  methods,  having,  therefore,  no  right  to  exist. 

But  under  the  closed  shop  the  employer  must  also  discriminate  against 
the  non-union  man.  In  regard  to  this  we  find  that  it  is  just  as  illegal 
for  the  employer  to  discriminate  against  the  non-union  man  as  it  is  for 
the  union  to  discriminate  against  him.  The  New  York  Supreme  Court, 
the  Superior  Court  of  Massachusetts,  the  Circuit  Court  of  Wisconsin  and 
the  appellate  division  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  York  all  declare  that 
a  closed  shop  contract  is  contrary  to  the  criminal  law  of  the  state  and  is, 
therefore,  void.  Therefore,  any  discrimination  against  the  non-unionist, 
either  by  the  union  or  by  the  employer,  a  condition  which  is  inherent  in 
the  closed  shop,  is  illegal  and  outrages  those  rights  which  the  Constitu- 
tion insures  to  all.  In  the  face  of  these  facts  we  ask  the  gentlemen  from 
Iowa  what  they  propose  to  do  with  the  non-union  man. 

But  the  right  of  any  individual,  the  employer  or  laborer,  dwindles 
into  insignificance  compared  with  the  dangers  resulting  to  society  from 
selfishness  of  six  or  seven  organized  men  who  set  their  rights  above 
the  rights  of  all  other  parties.  It  matters  not  how  this  selfishness  mani- 
fests itself,  whether  in  the  disregard  of  the  law  or  in  the  exploitation  of 
the  non-unionist;  they  are  but  manifestations  of  the  underlying  spirit  of 
the  closed  shop  movement.  In  passing  now  to  the  consideration  of  the 
public,  we  find  that  thus  far  the  movement  for  the  closed  shop  has  been 
characterized  by  an  absolute  refusal  to  safeguard  public  welfare.  In 
January,  1902,  the  coal  dealers  and  the  teamsters  in  the  city  of  Chicago 
entered  into  an  agreement  which  provided  that  none  but  members  of  the 
union  should  be  employed,  and  that  the  teamsters  should  work  for 
none  but  members  of  the  association.  With  this  understanding,  the  agent 
of  the  teamsters  stopped  the  delivery  of  coal  to  the  great  firm  of 
Marshall  Field  &  Co.,  that  winter,  until  that  firm  signed  a  two  years' 
contract  with  the  union  to  use  coal  gas  instead  of  natural  gas  during  the 
summer.  By  virtue  of  a  similar  agreement  the  treasury  of  the  Stonecut- 
ters' Union  received  a  bonus  of  10  per  cent  on  all  contracts  entered  into 
by  the  stone  trades  association.  As  a  final  instance  of  this  kind  of  public 
injustice  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  last  June,  in  the  city  of 
Chicago,  the  Milk  Dealers'  Association  and  the  Milk  Wagon  Drivers' 
Union  perfected  a  closed  agreement.  They  decided  that  one  delivery  of 
milk  per  day  was  sufficient  for  the  people  of  Chicago.  On  June  5th,  Dr. 
Arthur  R.  Reynolds,  Commissioner  of  Health,  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Milk 
Dealers'  Association,  the  Milk  Shippers'  Union  and  the  Milk  Wagon 
Drivers'  Union,  the  three  organizations  which  absolutely  control  the  milk 
business  of  Chicago,  protesting  that  a  single  delivery  of  milk  in  the  poorer 
districts  of  the  city  threatened  an  increased  mortality  among  little  children. 
No  attention  was  paid  to  this,  and  I  quote  from  the  weekly  bulletin  of 
the  Chicago  Board  of  Health  a  month  later,  which  reported:  "In  the  last 
week  of  June  the  deaths  among  infants  and  young  children  were  123 ;  this 
week  172  deaths  were  reported,  showing  an  increase  of  40  per  cent.  "Lad- 
ies and  gentlemen,  these  are  specific  instances  of  how  the  closed  shop, 
with  the  monopoly  power,  affects  the  welfare  of  the  American  people. 
There  are  examples  of  the  conditions  to  which  you  are  subject  yourselves 
in  supporting  the  proposition  presented  here  this  evening.  And  we  ask 


240  OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA 

you,  under  the  stress  of  self-protection,  that  you  give  to  the  movement 
of  organized  labor  for  the  closed  shop  your  complete  condemnation. 

Here  is  the  complete  cycle  of  closed  shop  injustice.  We  have  shown 
that  such  a  policy  means  monopoly  control.  We  have  shown  that  such 
a  policy  of  power  is  unjustifiable  from  every  standpoint  of  human  liberty, 
for  its  restriction  is  unfair  to  the  great  mass  of  non-union  workers,  and 
its  monopoly  not  only  impairs  the  welfare  of  the  employer  and  the  help- 
less consumer,  a  welfare  linked  inseparably  with  that  of  labor,  but  endan- 
gers the  very  lives  of  the  American  people.  The  vital  indictment  of  the 
closed  shop,  therefore  is  its  despotic  and  selfish  monopoly  which  des- 
troys the  rights  of  the  employer,  the  non-unionist,  and  jeopardizes  the  pros- 
perity and  even  the  life  of  the  American  public.  Against  such  a  policy 
we  plead. 


Index 


PAGE 

Abbott,  Dr.  Lyman   215 

Aberdeen,  South  Dakota  122 

Adams,   T.    S 95,  100 

Akron,  Ohio  188,  196 

Allen,  Governor   101 

Alpine,    John    R 148 

Alton,  111 94 

American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science 18 

American  Bridge  Co 150 

American  Federation  of  Labor: 

Bill  of   Rights    228 

dues  in 24 

groupings  in 29 

history   29 

membership    31 

organization,    system    of 24 

origin    24 

President 8,  25,  143,  224,  228 

American  Industries  61 

American  Labor  Year  Book  24 

American  Magazine    133 

Andrews,  John  B 185 

Anthracite   Coal   Strike   Commission 7,  54,  199,  200,  218 

Apprenticeship,  union  26,  Chapter  IX,  172 

Architects,  New  York   174 

Arguments,   College  debating Chapter  XXIII 

Army,  Brooklyn  supply  base   141 

Atlanta,  Georgia  129 

Augusta,  Georgia 156 

Ault,   E.   B 9,  167 

Babson,  Roger  W 133 

Baldwin  Locomotive  Works 67 

Barnett,  George  E 29,  112 

Benton  Harbor,  Michigan    8 

Bethlehem  Steel  Company 175 

Bird,  J.  Philip 22 

Blakeley,   Paul  L 212 

Boiler  Makers'  Brotherhood 78 

Boston  71,  84 

Boycott,  courts  and  230 

Duplex  case  162 

Breen,  John   201 

Brick  and  Clay  Record  . : 101 

Bricklayers    93,  102,  123,  136 

Bridgemen's  Magazine 6,  7 

Brindell    174,  181 

Brooklyn    141,  184 

Brown,  Joseph   M 156 

Buffalo    : 94,  122,  188,  197 

Buffalo    Commercial 94,  I22»  T76,  183 

Building  trade    n,  128,  181 

Burrell,  David  James  206 


242  INDEX 

PAGE 

Business    Digest    133 

Butte    129 

Cadman,  S.  Parkes 211 

Caldwell.  Frank  C 187 

Carpenters   93,  94 

Catholic  Church,  and  the  open  shop 206,  212,  215 

Chattanooga    131 

Chicago,  building  conditions   1 18 

Chicago    Tribune    141,   164 

Christian  Science  Monitor 190,  214 

Cincinnitti,  painters,  demands  in  118 

Clergy,  open  shop  and 65 

Clerks,  organization  among 37 

Cleveland 131 

Gosed  Shop,  compulsion  to  establish;  see  Compulsion: 

definition  and  forms   6,  10 

employers,  why  some  favor 181 

England,  harmed  by  117,  190 

ethics  and  Chapter  XX 

exclusive   agreements   and Chapter   XVII 

history,  early  American 15 

jurisdictional  disputes,  increased  by 138 

legal    aspects 219 

monopoly  aspects  Chapter  XVI 

output,  reduced  by,  Chapter  X 119 

outside  control  of  industry Chapter  VIII 

prices,  raised  by Chapter  XVII 

South   Africa       harmed   by 190 

strikes  to  establish 223 

unions,  refuse  to  arbitrate    36,  63 

Universal,  would  mean 190 

Collective  Bargaining,  factors  to  consider. 52 

National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  not  opposed  to 19,  20,  22 

plant,  by  employes  within 47,  57,  59,  63 

presidential  conferences    59,  61 

unions,  dictate  60,  66,  67 

College  debaters,  arguments  of Chapter  XXIII 

Commons,    John    R 15,  185 

Community,  open  shop  benefits Chapter  XVIII 

Competition,   closed   shop   and : Chapter   XVII 

Compulsion,  use  of  to  establish  closed  shopi4,  Chapter  XIV,  167,  170, 

173,  199 

Conlon,  P.  J 102 

Constantine,  Earl 158,  202 

Contracts,  unions  and ;  see  Irresponsibility. 

Coolidge,  Calvin 217 

Co-operative  representation  ;see  Collective  Bragaining. 

Courts,   labor  questions,   attitude   on 229 

Union  leaders  defy 227 

Cuyahoga  County,  Ohio    94 

Cuyler,  Thomas  De  Witt 179 

Daily  Bond  Buyer    194 

Dallas 122,  129,  163,  192,  196 

Danbury,    Connecticut    196 

Danbury  Hatters'  case  75 

Debaters,  arguments  of  college Chapter  XXIII 

suggestions  to   - Chapter  XXIII 

Davenport,  Daniel 229 

Day.  James  R 214 

Deibler,    F.    S 95,  172 

De  Leeu w,  A.  L , 59 


INDEX  243 

PAGE 

Dennett,  H.  W 36,  63 

Denver  121 

Detroit  129 

Donnelley,  T.  E 89,  125 

Doyle,  C.  W 100 

Doyle,  Edward  L 166 ' 

Drew,  Walter   40,  75,  225 

Duncan,  James   186 

Dunn,  Edward    138 

Duplex  Printing  Company   162 

Edgerton,  John  E 205 

Efficiency,  see  Scientific  Management. 

Unions  should  increase 45 

Eliot,  Charles  W 214 

Elyria,  Ohio,  Open  Shop  efficiency 127 

Emery,    James    A 20,  22,  52,  58,  71,  191,  224 

Emmet,  Dr 51 

England,  closed  shop  harms  117,  190 

Employers : 

Closed  Shop  and  prices Chapter  XVII 

Closed  Shop,  why  some  favor  181,  183 

Exclusive  agreements Chapter  XVII 

Stop  work  only  when  necessary  » 38 

Unionists  refuse  to  work  for 36 

Epworth  League,  Kansas 166 

Ethics,  closed  shop  and  ^ Chapter  XX 

Exclusive  agreements Chapter  XVII 

Farmers,  injured  by  strikes   70,  190 

Fay,  Charles  Norman  65,  200 

Fee,  Grant   67,  90,  108 

Fetter,    Dr.    Frank    85,  95,  167 

Florence,   Alabama    131 

Foster,  William  Z 82,  176 

Gary,  Elbert  H 61 

Gibbons,   Cardinal   215 

Gibson,  J.  Bruce 12=5 

Glenn,  John  M 157 

Gompers,  Samuel ;  see  American  Federation  of  Labor,  President. 

Goodrich,  Governor  216 

Goodyear  Tire  and  Rubber  Co 196 

Gore,    C.   R 201 

Grace,  Eugene  175 

Grand  Rapids,  open  shop  and 197 

Grange,  National  '. 7°,  I9° 

Grant,  Luke    M9,  *77 

Green,  William  186 

Groat,  Professor 100 

Gun-men,  used  by  New  York  unions 152 

Hammond,  John  Hays  214 

Harding,  Warren  217 

Harvey's  Weekly  93 

Hoover,  Herbert    217 

Howard,  Earl  Dean 63 

Independent  labor,  rights  of,  Chapter  XIX 215 

"scabs"  and  unionists  203 

unionists  won't  work  with  36 

union  members,  efficiency  comparison Chapter  XI 

union  monpoly,  how  affected  by  169 

Indianapolis    188,  194 

Individual  bargaining  67 

Individual  freedom,  principle  upheld   215,  217,  218 


244  INDEX 

PAGE 

Industrial  conference,  presidential  59,  61 

Industrial  warfare  Chapter  XIV 

Industry,  size  of  establishments  52,  58 

Initiation   fees,   in   unions    26,173 

Interstate   Commerce   Commission    177 

.  Ireland,  Archbishop 215 

Iron  Trade  Review   191 

Iron  Workers'  Union 6,  70,  75,  79,  150,  177 

Irresponsibility  of  unions,  business  world  comparisons 71,  165  225 

contract  violation  71,  73,  .224 

employers,    result    on 76 

financial  responsibility,  none Chapter     VII 

legal  responsibility,  none  75 

removal  of 224,  226 

bhannsen,    Anton    36,  161 

ohnson,  Alba  B 67 

ones,  "Mother"  155 

udge,  Patrick 173 

urisdictional  disputes;  see  strikes,  jurisdictional. 

Kansas,  Epworth  League 166 

Keeler,   Edward  A 186 

Kilby,  Governor  164 

Knights  of  Labor  24,  30 

Kurn,  St.  Louis-San  Francisco  Railway 179 

Label,  union 191 

Labor  Review,  Monthly  51 

Labor  Statistics,  Federal  Bureau  of 38 

Lauck,  W.  Jett  60 

Laughlin,  J.  Laurence  43,  169 

Lawson,  John   R 72 

Leo  XIII,  Pope  206 

Levy,  Pacific  Coast  Merchant  Tailors 123 

Lincoln,  Abraham 214 

Little  Rock  1 16,  130,  173,  193 

Little  Rock,  New  Sky  Line  47,  116,  130,  163,  173,  193 

Lloyd,    Ernest   F 65,  76,  83,  1 19,  165 

Lloyd  George,  output  restriction  in  England 117 

Lockwood  Committee;  see  Brindell. 

Los  Angeles 188,  194,  197,  201 

Los  Angeles  Times  124,  127,  197 

Lum,  Dyer  D 203 

Machinery,  union  opposition 95,  1 12,  187 

Machinists,  International  Association  of 85,86,98,  161,  177 

Manufacturers  Record  196 

Markham,  C.  H 37 

Marot,  Helen 8,  64,  149 

Mason,  Stephen  C 18 

Massachusetts,  Employers'  Association  of  Eastern 71 

Material,  refusal  to  handle  open  shop   12,  173 

Maurer,  James  H 162 

McAdoo,  William 231 

McCabe,  Bishop  215 

McCabe,  Dr.  David   95 

McCord,  Frank  B 79 

McNamara  case   150 

Medina,  New  York  127 

Merritt,  Walter  Gordon 1 19,  184 

Methodist  Church,  bishops   favor  open  shop 215,216 

Minimum  wage,  union  is  maximum 95 

Minneapolis 131. 

Citizens  Alliance 122,  131 


INDEX  245 

PAGE 

Minnesota   191 

Minnesota  Daily  Star   166 

Minority,  control  by  opposed,  Chapter  VIII,  215,  216 

Mitchell,   John    74,  167,  227 

Moffitt,  Tohn  A 78 

Monopoly,  closed  shop  and, Chapter  XVI 

labor,  consequences  of 169 

National  Association  of  Manufacturers: 

apprentices,  rules  of  unions  opposed 85 

co-operative  representation,  report  of  sub-committee 49 

labor   principles    Chapter    II 

public,  gives  facts  to 6 

purpose  and  work 20 

National    Erectors    Association    130,  177 

National  Founders  Asosciation    175 

National  Industrial  Conference  Board 51 

National  Labor  Digest  32,  186 

National   Roofing   Company    no 

Newspapers,  closed  shop  and 122 

New  York  State  Industrial  Commission 38 

New  York  City  newspapers : 

Call 82 

Daily   News   Record    197 

Herald    121,  179 

Mail    135 

Sun  152 

Times 179,  181,  182,  190 

Tribune   194 

Wall  Street  Journal  179 

Norfolk,  Virginia    131 

North  Tonawanda,  New  York 122 

Non-union  labor  -.see  Independent  labor. 

Oakland  no 

O'Donnell,   Simon    136 

Oklahoma  Employer  196 

Omaha  131 

Open  Shop,  abuse  of 23 

community  benefits  from Chapter  XVIII 

definition    7 

laws  to  establish,  opposed  232 

operating  costs   reduced   by Chapter   XI 

support,  extent  of   16,  23 

suppression,  not  aim  of 23,  39 

unionists,  employed  where  possible   36 

value,  statistics  prove  Chapter  XVIII 

wages  and   202 

Open   Shop  Review    196 

Operating  costs,  computation  of   120 

Organized  labor;  see  also  Union£,  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

future   of    32 

neglects   opportunities    33 

without  unions   . .. 47 

Osborne,  Benjamin 9 

Output,  open  shop  increases Chapter   XI 

restriction  of  Chapter  X 

Parker.   Governor    216 

Paterson,  J.  V 159 

Paterson,  New  Jersey 197 

Patterson,  .Harvey  A 120 

Phelps,  F.  W.... 204 


246  INDEX 

PAGE 

Philadelphia    71 

Piez,  Charles  N 79,  m 

Plumbers    92,  94,  101 

Poindexter,  Senator 216 

Preece,  Thomas  H 101 

Preferential  shop,  and  closed  shop 8 

Presbyterians,  clergymen  denounces  closed  shops 206 

Prices,  closed  shop  increases Chapter  XVII 

Printing  Pressmen    7 

Public : 

Industry  should  consider  211 

Legality  of  closed  shop  agreements  made  by  public  officials 222 

Officials  cannot  discriminate  against  independent  workers  191,  216, 

218,  222 

Open  shop,  how  benefits Chapter  XVII 

Prices,  closed  shop,  and Chapter  XVII 

Strikes,  how  they  affect Chapter  XIV 

Quakers,  bricklayers  123 

Quayle,  Bishop   216 

Quincy,   Illinois,  American   Open   Shop   Association 130 

Railroads,  open  shop  and 177 

Rand  School  of  Social  Science 24 

Recognition    of   unions    . 36,  64,65 

Rents,  increased  by  closed  shop  policy 186,  217 

Review  of  Reviews  189 

Rice,  I.  H 196 

Robins,  Mrs.  Raymond  74 

Rochester  Democrat  Chronicle  186 

Rochester,  efficiency  comparisons  126 

Roosevelt,   Theodore    7,  200,    218 

St.  Joseph,  Michigan   8 

St.  Louis-San  Francisco  Railway 179 

St.  Paul,  Minnesota 166 

Salt  Lake  120,  130 

San  Francisco    108,  123,  188,  195 

Sargent,  Noel   99 

"Scab" 203 

Scientific  Management 102,  103,  120 

Seattle 36,  129,  166,  189,  194 

Seattle  Union  Record  36,  166 

Shedd,  John  G 80 

Shipyard  Labor  Adjustment  Board 232 

Shrum,  Al 163 

Sioux  Citv,  Iowa,  Employers'  Association 141 

Skinner,  George  N ." 77 

Smelser,  D.  P 25,  97.  TOT 

South  Africa,  closed  shop  harms 190 

Southwestern  Open  Shop  Association 129 

Spencer,  W.  J " 183 

Splinters  and  Chips 141 

Standard    Pattern   Company    122 

Statistics,  open  shop  supported  by Chapter  XVIII 

Steel  industry,  open  shop  and 174 

Stockton,  Dr.  Frank  7,  8,  64,  119,  138,  141,  183 

Stone  cutters,  machinery,  opposition  to   112 

Street  railways,  open  shop  and 48 

Strikes,  barbarous 2I4 

definition 132 

farmers,    loss    from 7o 

general Chapter  XII 

illegal 223 


INDEX  .  247 

PAGE 

jurisdictional   Chapter  XIII 

open  shop  reduces   189,  193 

"outlaw"    70 

statistics    132 

sympathetic  . 74,  Chapter  XIII 

Survey,  reviews  record  of  Grand  Rapids   197 

System   139 

Tacoma,  Associated  Industries    39,  59,  129,  189 

Taft,   William    Howard    217,  232 

Taylor,    Dudley    76,  157,  192 

Thayer,  Judge  Webster  198 

Thomas,   Christy    189 

Tompkins,  Roswell  D 103 

Torpy,   Charles    B 139 

Twin  Falls,  Idaho  130 

Typographical    Union    36,  98 

Unions,  acts  condoned  by Chapter  XV 

ambitious,  refuse  to  join   201 

attitude  of  employers  Chapter  II,  76 

controlled  by  minority  +. . .      81 

defiance  of  law  227 

dictation  by  opposed  215  216 

faults,  can  be  remedied   40,  43 

groupings  'of    29 

initiation   fees    26 

label 191 

machinery,    opposition    to    95,  112 

members,  refuse  to  work  with  independent  workers 36 

membership    in    25,  31 

minority  of  workers  contained  in 31 

recognition;   see  Recognition. 

scientific  management,  wages  reduced  by  opposition  to 103 

standard  wages  for  all 95 

Union  shop,  and  closed  shop 7 

United  Mine  Workers  70,  72,  161,  164 

United  States,  closed  shop  and  war 123,  141 

output  restriction,   government  report    ...  % 93,  95 

War  Labor  Board    126 

Valentine,  Joseph  F 66 

Violence : 

between    unions    145 

condoned  by  unions    Chapter  XV 

Industrial  disputes  and Chapter  XIV 

Wages : 

Monopoly,    used   by   unions    to    raise 170 

Open  shop  and 202 

Scientific  management  increases 104 

standard    forced   by   unions 95 

War: 

Closed    shop    delayed    winning 117 

Open   shop  and I91 

U.  S.  Govt.  experience  with  closed  shops 123.  141 

Warfare,  industrial   Chapter  XIV 

War  Labor  Board,   National    232 

Weekly  Review 42 

White*  Motor  Trucks   47 

Whitney,  Dr.   Nathaniel    : 142 

Wilson,    jA.    W, 94 

Wolfe.  Dr.  F.  E 8,  26,  88,  172 

Wolman,  Leo   31,  TQ8 

Women's  Trade  Union  League,  National 74 


248  INDEX 


Woods,  Arthur 153 

Work,  refusal  to  complete   12,  174 

Wright,   Judge    F.    M. 136 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO—  ^      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

RECEIVED  BY 

MAY  1  1  ttfifi 

rim  NATION  DE 

*r 

V*IKV*ULMI  Iwl^l    irfc 

FORM  NO.  DD6, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


GENERAL  LIBRARY. U.c.  BERKELEY 


